"ft: 


^.'^.  ^ 


/fs^ 


Jh-umi?.  (L.Ujivnall. 


FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF 
REV.   LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON.  D.  D. 

BEQUEATHED    BY   HIM   TO 

THE   LIBRARY  OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


ismim  msimsL'^  mis,\r.\ms'd^iLiJisM(  '^'j-rMwsm.m.m. 


SENIi'Ii    UlSaOP   OF    THK    PROT I 


::    THE    ITNITK' 
v.-iVl.VANIA. 


,\U1  OF  PHI^ 
APR  22  1932 


MEMOIRS        V*^^  CO 


FllOTESTANT    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH 


UNITED   STATES    OF   AMERICA, 

FROM    ITS    ORGANIZATION    UP    TO    THE    PRESENT    DAY: 
CONTAINING, 

I.    A    NARRATIVE    OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    AND    OF    THE 
EARLY  MEASURES  OF  THE  CHURCH; 

II.    ADDITIONAL  STATEMENTS  AND  REMARKS; 

HI.    AN  APPENDIX  OF  ORIGINAL  PAPERS. 


Z^' 


BY  WILLIAM  WHITE,   D.  D. 

BtSHOP    OF     THE     PROTESTANT     EPISCOPAL    CHURCH    IN    THE    COMMONWEALTH    OF 

PENNSVLVANIA. 


SECOND     EDITION. 


NEW- YORK : 

SWORDS,  STANFORD,  AND  CO. 

No.  152  Broadway, 

i836. 


D  E  D  I  C  A  T  I  O  N. 


TO  THE   BISHOPS   OF  THE   PROTESTANT 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

My  much  esteemed  Brethren, 

The  motive  to  the  prefixing  of  a  dedication  to  these 
Memoirs,  is  the  opportunity  thus  afforded  of  testifying  to 
the  Chiirdi  at  large,  the  harmony  which  has  subsisted 
among  us  in  our  joint  counsels  for  the  conducting  of  our 
ecclesiastical  concerns.  If,  at  any  time  there  has  been  a 
shade  of  difference  of  opinion,  it  has  been  overbalanced  by 
the  pleasure  of  mutual  concession,  and  by  the  profit  of 
amicable  discussion. 

All  of  yo!i  have  been  ordained  to  the  Episcopacy  by  my 
hands.  Submission  of  opinion  on  this  account,  is  what  I 
have  never  had  the  arrogancy  to  claim  :  but  if  any  degree 
of  personal  respect  should  be  supposed  a  natural  conse- 
quence, 1  can  thankfully  acknowledge,  that  it  has  been 
bestowed., 

Having  lived  in  days  in  which  there  existed  prejudices 
in  our  land  against  the  name,  and  much  more  against  the 
cfficc,  of  a  bishop;  and  when  it  was  doubtful,  whether  any 


iv  DEDICATION. 

person  in  that  character  would  be  tolerated  in  the  com 
munity  ;  I  now  contemplate  nine  of  our  number,  conducting 
the  duties  of  their  office  without  interruption ;  and  in  re- 
gard not  to  them  only,  but  to  ten  of  us  who  have  gone  to 
their  rest,  I  trust  the  appeal  may  be  made  to  the  world, 
for  their  not  being  chargeable  with  causes  of  offence  to  our 
fellow  Christians  and  our  fellow  citizens  generally,  or  with 
the  assuming  of  any  powers  within  our  communion,  not 
confessedly  recognised  by  our  ecclesiastical  institutions. 

Being  your  senior  by  many  years,  I  enjoy  satisfaction  in 
the  expectation  of  the  good  which  you  may  be  expected  to 
be  achieving,  in  what  is  now  our  common  sphere  of  action, 
when  I  shall  be  removed  from  it :  and,  with  my  prayers  for 
the  success  of  your  endeavours  to  this  effect, 
I  subscribe  myself, 

Your   affectionate  brother, 

THE  AUTHOR. 


P  R  E  F  A  C  E 


THE    FIRST    EDITION 


Many  years  ago,  tlie  author  of  the  following  work  ucgau 
to  commit  to  writing  the  most  material  facts  which  had 
occurred,  relative  to  the  Church  of  which  he  is  a  minister, 
intending,  in  the  event  of  the  continuance  of  life  and  health, 
to  carry  on  the  recital.  This  was  not  with  a  view  to  early 
publication,  because  of  the  small  extent  of  the  sphere,  in 
%vhich  the  detail  of  very  recent  events  was  likely  to  interest 
curiosity.  Accordingly,  what  was  thus  prepared  laid  un- 
noticed, until  an  application  was  made,  about  twelve  years 
ago,  by  the  editor  of  the  American  edition  of  Dr.  Rees's 
Cyclopedia,  requesting  attention  to  certain  parts  of  that 
work,  with  a  view  to  otiier  objects.  On  this  occasion  it 
occurred,  that  there  might  be  propriety  and  use  in  insert- 
ing, in  a  work  of  that  kind,  a  brief  account  of  what  had 
baen  transacted  during  some  years  preceding,  within  the 
Episcopal  Church.  For  this  reason,  there  was  made  <a 
draft  from  the  notes  before  taken,  for  the  purpose  stated. 
As  what  remained  comprehended  sundry  matters,  not  of 
sufficiently  general  concern  for  insertion  in  the  Cyclopedia^ 
it  was  afterwards  reviewed  under  the  impression  that  the 
time  might  come,  when  the  former  labour  would  not  be 
unacceptable,  within  ihc  communion  for  which  it  had  been 
designed.  In  the  present  publication,  the  narrative  has 
been  continued  to  the  present  time.     With  it,  there  arc 


VI  PUEFACi:  T(J  THK  FIR^T  KDITruV. 

given  the  matters  leapt  buck  fioiii  tlic  j)n!)lication  i:i  I  lie 
Cyclopedia;  and  a  continuation  of  similar  statements  and 
remarks. 

It  i^a.s  been  occasionally  suggested,  from  a  knowledge  of 
the  materials  in  the  hands  of  the  author,  and  in  considera- 
tion of  the  opportunities  which  he  has  possessed  of  personal 
observation  of  characters  and  of  facts,  that  it  would  be 
better  to  embody  the  narrative  with  the  remarks,  and  to 
make  a  history  of  the  whole.  The  mere  melting  of  them 
into  one  mass,  after  the  separation  of  them  as  related  above, 
did  not  seem  likely  to  be  fruitful  of  any  considerable  advant- 
age ;  and  as  to  the  name  of  *'  a  history,"  it  would  not  only 
be  disproportioned  to  the  work,  but  perhaps  pledge  to  an 
attempt,  beyond  what  there  are  materials  to  accomplish. 
Of  materials  concerning  the  aggregate  Church,  the  author 
possesses  ail  that  are  necessary,  and  more  than  will  be  here 
given;  the  view  being  confined  to  the  more  important:  but 
his  collections  in  regard  to  the  Church  in  the  different 
dioceses,  are  perhaps  incomplete,  although  he  is  furnished 
with  almost  all  their  journals,  and  thinks  himself  well  in- 
formed as  to  all  the  material  events  which  have  occurred 
for  half  a  century  backward.  Besides,  there  are  a  few 
points  on  which  he  wished  to  retain  a  liberty  that  would  be 
inconsistent  with  the  fulness,  and,  considering  what  is  to  be 
expected  in  such  a  work,  the  fidelity  of  a  history.  One  of 
these  points  is,  that  he  chooses  to  be  silent  in  regard  to  a 
few  transactions,  which,  although  sufficiently  known  and 
discoursed  of  when  they  happened,  are  not  of  so  much  im- 
portance to  the  future  concerns  of  theChurch,  as  to  induce 
n  wish  to  perpetuate  the  remembrance  of  them;  and  there- 
by the  personal  irritation  by  which  they  were  accompanied. 
Besides  th.ese  reasons,  there  is  one  arising  from  the  de- 
sire of  avoiding  such  a  development  of  the  characters  of 
agents,  as  might  induce  the  relating  and  the  unintentional 
misstating  of  what  may  have  passed  in  unguarded  conver- 
sation.    It   is   an    unfair  a<lvantag('   taken  of  a  dcccas&d 


PKKFACC  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION,  yn 

«harFiCter,  lor  an  author  to  represent  him  as  iiis  own  j)r<'-^ 
j^idices  or  his  passions  dictate;  when,  perhaps,  tiie  other 
party  would  have  had  the  precaution  to  inake  his  own  story 
known,  had  he  foreseen  such  a  result  oi"  the  freedom  ot" 
social  intercourse. 

Another  license  which  has  grown  out  of  the  adopted  \>h\n, 
is  the  anticipating  of  some  circumstances  which  took  place 
in  England,  during  tlie  intercourse  with  his  grace  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury;  when  such  anticipation  might  illus- 
trate any  matter  previously  under  review.  The  motive, 
was  the  desire  to  record  the  said  intercourse  in  the  form  in 
which  it  now  appears,  that  is,  in  letters  to  the  committee  of 
the  Church  in  Pennsylvania;  which,  having  been  written 
when  the  matters  related  were  fresh  on  tlie  mind  of  the 
narrator,  is  the  more  likely  to  be  a  faithful  exhibition  of 
them.  To  have  enlarged  the  letters  would  have  been  in- 
correct; and  yet,  in  what  passed  in  the  intercourse,  there 
was  such  connexion  with  some  points  in  an  earlier  part  of 
the  work,  as  was  too  material  to  be  disregarded.  Although 
there  has  not  been  an  enlargement  of  the  letters,  nor  an 
alteration  of  them  in  any  instance,  there  have  been  attached 
to  them  a  few  notes,  containing  matters  of  less  moment. 

The  motive  of  the  author  in  the  statements,  is  principally 
to  record  facts,  which  may  otherwise  be  swept  into  oblivion 
by  the  lapse  of  time.  For  the  mixing  of  his  opinions  with 
the  facts,  a  reason  may  be  thought  due.  It  is,  that  the 
habits  of  his  life  having  exercised  him  much,  on  subjects 
which  have  bearings  on  the  concerns  of  the  Church  in  doc- 
trine, in  discipline,  and  in  worship;  and  his  principles 
having  been  formed  with  deliberation,  and  acted  on  with 
perseverance,  not  without  prayer  to  the  Father  of  Lights 
for  his  holy  guidance;  there  seems  to  him  nothing  unrea- 
sonable in  the  wish,  to  give  the  weight  of  long  observation, 
to  what  are  truth  and  order  in  his  esteem.  He  has  not  the 
presumption  to  aspire  to,  nor  the  vanity  to  expect  to  share 
in  the  direction  of  the  concerns  of  the  Church,  after  the  very 


nil  PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 

lew  years,  in  which  there  will  be  a  possibility  of  his  bein«' 
j)i*esent  in  iier  councils  :  but  he  commits  his  opinions,  to  the 
issue  of  what  may  be  thought  in  reason  due  to  them. 

On  the  author's  review  of  his  statements  and  remarks. 
he  had  often  a  painful  sensation  of  the  frequent  prominence 
in  tliem  of  Jiimself.  In  the  way  of  apology,  let  it  be  re- 
marked— first,  that  the  apparent  fault  is  in  a  great  degree 
inseparable  from  the  delivery  of  the  results  of  personal 
observation  ;  and,  secondly,  that  he  has  had  more  agency 
than  any  other  person,  in  the  transactions  recorded  :  owing 
to  the  circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed  ;  to  a  cause  for 
which  he  cannot  be  sufficiently  thankful,  the  continuance  of 
his  health  and  strength ;  and  to  his  having  attended  every 
General  Convention,  from  the  beginning  to  the  present 
time.  Under  the  weight  of  these  considerations,  he  com- 
mits himself  to  the  candour  of  the  reader. 

Of  the  papers  in  the  Appendix,  a  great  proportion  are 
what  may  be  read  in  the  printed  journals ;  but  they  were 
thought  necessary  to  the  series  of  the  events  presented. 
Those  papers  which  were  in  the  private  possession  of  the 
author,  and  were  designed  to  have  an  influence  on  the 
concerns  of  the  Church,  he  has  thought  it  due  to  the 
object  of  this  work,  to  perpetuate.  The  printing  of  any 
document  which  took  the  shape  of  a  canon,  has  been 
judged  unnecessary. 

In  regard  to  letters,  let  it  be  noticed,  that  there  are  none 
besides  those,  which,  like  the  papers  above  referred  to,  were 
designed  to  have  public  influence.  In  private  letters,  there 
is  much  to  confirm  the  statements  made,  and  to  enlarge 
them,  if  that  were  the  design. 


P  il  E  F  A  C  E 


THE    SECOND    E  D  I  T  I  O  N 


The  Moinoirs  of  tjie  Episcopal  Church,  edited  some  years 
ago  by  the  present  outhor,  being  out  of  print;  and  there 
being  none  on  hand  so  far  as  is  known  to  him,  except  a 
few  copies  in  his  possession;  belays  by  the  following  sheets, 
under  the  idea,  that  in  the  event  of  a  future  reprint,  they 
may  be  thought  a  desirable  addition  to  the  volume.  It  will 
then  contain  whatever  relates  materially  to  the  concerns  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  for  the  space  of  fifty-two  years;  of 
which  the  former  publication  was  devoted  to  the  first  thirty  ; 
and  the  present  is  limited  to  the  remaining  twenty-two. 

The  author  cannot  expect,  at  his  time  of  life,  that  be  will 
much  longer  live  to  be  present  at  the  counsels  of  the  Church ; 
or  that,  if  living,  his  mind  will  be  competent  to  the  continua- 
tion of  the  present  work.  Accordingly,  in  these  considera- 
tions, he  perceives  a  call  on  him,  to  say,  in  accordance  with 
a  sentiment  of  the  Mantuan  poet—"  Clauditejam  Rivos:' 

To  whatever  period  the  days  of  his  earthly  pilgrimage 
may  be  extended ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  dispensations 
of  Providence  in  the  course  of  them  ;  whether,  as  hitherto, 
the  uninterrupted  enjoyment  of  health,  and  a  considerable 

2 


CONTEiN'Tf?. 


Of  Proceedings  in  tiiindry  States,  previous  tu  tlie  Meetings  in  1784,  at 

New-Bruns\vi;;k  and  at  New -York 
Of  the  General  Convention,  in  Philadelphia,  in  September  and  Octobe 

1785  ... 


JOf  the  Convention  in  Philadelph 
Of  Personal  Intercourse  with  the 
Of  the  Convention  in  17S9 
1792 
1795 
1799 
1801 
1804 
1803 
1811 
1814 
1817 
Postscript 

,Of  the  Convention  of  1520 
1821 
1823 
182G 
1829 
1832 
1835 
Conclusion 


a  and  Wilraingtoji,  in  1786 
Archbisiiop  of  Canterbury 


82 

96 
115 
124 
140 
161 
171 
176 
179 
187 
192 
209 
216 
224 
230 
235 
213 
247 
251 
259 
262 
267 
271 


3.  AN  APPEiNDIX  OF  ORIGINAL  PAPERS. 

Communication  with  the  Court  of  Denmark  .  .  .      275 

Communication  of  the  Cler^jy  of  Connecticut,  to  the  Archbi.shop  of  York        277 
A  Letter  from  the  Rev.  Abraham  Jarvis,  in  the  Name  of  the  Clergy  of 

Connecticut  ......      282 

A  Letter  from  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Seabury,  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith      .      286 
Address  of  the  Convention  of  1785,  to  the  English  Prelates        .  .      293 

Letter  of  the  English  Prelates      .....      297 

A  Memorial  from  the  Convention  iiv  New-Jersey,  to  the  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
to  be  held  in  the  City  of  Philadclpliia  in  June  next  .  .       298 

Second  Address  to  the  English  Prelates       ....       301 

■Communications  from  the  .Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  .       303 

Communication  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  .  .       309 

Address  to  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  .311 

A  Letter  from  Granville  Sharp,  Esq.  to  Dr.  Benjamin  Franklin,  with 

Extiacts  of  Letters  .  .  .  .312 

An  Act  of  the  General  Convention  oC  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  States  of  New- York,  New-Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  South-Carolina,  lield  at  Wilmington,  in 
tlip  State  of  Delaware,  on  Wednesday,  the  Jlth  of  October,  1786  .       21fi 


CONTENTS-  Xlll 

Page 

Inslrnmant  of  ConsecraUon  .  .  .  i  .      321 

Note  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  ....       325 

Letters  from  the  President  of  Congress,  (Richard  Henry  Lee,  Esq.)  and 

from  the  Minister  of  the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  Great-Britain, 

(John  Adams,  Esq.)  and  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  Mr. 

Adams:  also  Certiflcates  from  the  E.\ecutive  of  Pennsylvania  and  Vir- 


u.'0 


ginia  ....-• 

Letter  from  Richard  Peters,  Esq.  .  .  •  .330 

An  Act  of  the  Clergy  of  Massachusetts  and  New-Hampshire     .                 .  333 
An  Address  to  the  Most  Reverend  the  Archbishops  of  Canteiliury  and 

York  .  .  .  .  ■  •  .335 

A  (jieneral  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 

States  of  America     .....                 .  333 

A  Letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke,  and  the  Answer    .                .                .  343 

Testimonial  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrew                  .                 .                .  348 

Circular  of  a  Committee  in  South-Carolina                 .                 .                 .  349 

A  Letter  from  Bishop  Provoost,  and  the  Determination  of  the  Bishops     .  351 

Forms  of  Subscription                  .....  253 

Decision  of  the  Bishops  on  the  Case  of  Ammi  Piogei-s                .                .  353 

Of  the  Homilies            ......  354 

<Joncerning  Posture  during  Psalmody         ....  355 

Of  a  Proposal  of  uevv  Anthems,  and  of  Sanction  requested  in  favour  of 

a  proposed  Book        ......  355 

Concerning  the  Identity  of  this  Church  witli  the  former  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  America        ......  2^6 

Concerning  certain  Amusements                 .                .                ■                .  337 
Acts  of  the  Convention  of  1785                    .                 .                 .                .330 

Of  the  Office  of  Confirmation       .....  377 

Concerning  the  last  Rubric  in  the  Communion  Service              .                .  378 
Thoughts  on  the  Proposal  of  Alterations  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  in  Metre, 
and  in  the  Hymns,  now  before  a  Committee  of  the  General  Convention: 

By  a  Member  of  the  Committee               ....  384 

Constitution  of  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  established 

in  1820,  and  amended  in  1823,  1829,  1832,  and  1835               .                .  387 

Concerning  the  Division  of  Dioceses          ....  389 


1.     A     NARRATIVE 


ORGANIZATION 


AND   OF    THE 


EARLY    MEASURES 


CHURCH. 


A    NARRATIVE,    &c. 


Although  it  happened,  as  might  be  expected,  that  a 
proportion  of  the  settlers  of  Enghsh  America  were  of  the 
profession  estabhshed  in  England;  yet  tiie  number  was  not 
so  considerable  as  might  be  supposed  from  the  existing 
relation  ;  owing  probably  to  tlie  circumstance,  that  several 
of  the  colonies  arose  in  a  great  measure  from  dissatisfaction 
with  the  establishment  at  honu?,  and  partly  to  an  influx  of 
subsequent  settlers,  not  only  from  other  countries,  subject 
to  the  same  crown,  but  also  from  countries  on  the  continent 
of  Europe;  principally  some  of  the  states  of  Germany. 
In  the  northern  and  eastern  states,  the  comparatively  small 
tunnber  of  the  Church  of  England  may  be  seen  in  the  fact, 
that  when  the  revolutionary  war  began,  there  were  not 
more  than  about  eighty  parochial  clergymen  of  that  Church 
to  the  northward  and  to  the  eastward  of  Maryland  ;  ana 
tbat  those  clergymen  derived  the  greater  part  of  their 
subsistence  from  the  society  instituted  in  England,  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts ;  with  the  ex- 
ception of  those  resident  in  the  towns  of  Boston  and  New- 
port, and  the  cities  of  New- York  and  Philadelphia:  there 
being  no  Episcopal  congregations  out  of  those  towns  and 
cities,  held  to  be  of  ability  to  support  clergymen  of  them- 
selves.* In  Maryland  and  in  Virginia  the  Episcopal  Church 
was  much  more  numerous,  and  had  legal  establishments 
for  its  support.  It  was  especially  numerous  in  those  parts 
of  the  said  provinces  which  were  settled  when  the  establish- 
ments took  place;  for  in  the  more  recently  settled  counties, 
the  mass  of  the  people  were  of  other  communions,  scarcely 


•  The  clergy  in  the  province  of  Pennsvlvmiia,  exclusive  of  those  in  the  city  of 
Pliiladelphia,  were  never  more  than  six  in  number;  all  of  wlioni  were  mission- 
aries, raceiving  salaries  i'rom  England.  The  paiociiia!  tler.ffy  of  the  city  were 
four, 


18 

ttiiown  among  iliein  in  llie  enrly  period  of  their  hisloriea. 
In  the  more  southern  colonics,  tlie  Kpiscopahans  were 
fewer  in  proportion  than  in  the  two  last  inentionetl;  but 
more  than  in  the  northern. 

It  may  be  supposed,  that  however  conij)arative]y  few 
the  original  emigrants  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
northern  and  the  middle  colonies  ;  yet  they  must  have 
derived  aid  from  the  executive  of  the  parent  state,  through 
the  medium  of  its  representatives,  the  governors.  Thi3 
was,  indeed,  the  case  in  a  degree;  but  the  aid  was  incon- 
siderable, and  confined  to  two  or  three  of  the  earliest  seats 
of  po|)ulation.  Besides,  it  may  well  be  doubted,  whether^ 
imtler  the  continually  existing  jealousy  in  the  colonies  of 
the  parent  power,  there  did  not  result  some  disadvantage 
to  a  denomination  comparatively  small,  from  a  community 
of  profession:  for  this  circumstance  may  have  had  n  ten- 
dency to  render  the  denomination  unpopular  among  a  great 
proportion  of  their  fellow-citizens ;  especially  under  the 
apprehension  that  it  might,  at  some  future  day,  be  an  engine 
aiding  in  the  introduction  of  a  new  system  of  colonial 
government.* 

But  even  if  the  Episcopal  Church  found  any  source  of  in- 
crease in  the  connexion,  this  was  more  than  counterbalanced 
by  the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  it  existed;  which 
prevented,  and  probably,  under  the  old  regime,  would  have 
continued  to  prevent  its  organization.  Separated  by  the 
Atlantic  ocean  from  the  Episcopacy,  under  which  it  had  been 
planted,  it  had  no  resource  for  a  ministry,  but  in  emjgratioft 
from  the  mother  country,  and  by  sending  its  candidates  for 
the  ministry  to  that  country  for  orders.  The  first  could  not 
be  the  channel  of  a  respectable  permanent  supply.  And  the 
second,  which  was  the  most  depended  on  in  the  latter  years 
of  the  colonies,  was  very  troublesome  and  expensive.  The 
evil  of  the  want  of  an  internal  Episcopacy  did  not  end  here. 
For  although  the  bishoj)  of  London  was  considered  as  the 
diocesan  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in  America,  it  is  evident, 
that  his  authority  could  not  be  effectually  exerted,  at  such 
a  distance,  for  the  removing  of  unworthy  clergymen ;  besides 
which,  there  were  civil  institutions  supposed  to  be  irt  oppo- 
sition to  it,  in  the  provinces  where  establishments  had  been 
provided.     In  Maryland,  in  particular,  all  interference  of 


•  Perhaps  tliP  auly  ronsi(h'ral)li''  endow niciit  by  tlie  I'liglish  govermiiont  \va« 
of  lanJs  to  Trinity  Cluirch.  Ncw-Vork.  Its  l)elii£;  c-oiiHiderable,  i:i  owiu^  to  iu 
Imviiig  LieconiH  ofgrcnt  valn«  by  the  iiirroasi'  of  tlmt  city. 


19 

the  bishop  of  l^niulon,  except  if)  tlse  siingle  matter  of  ordiiift- 
tion,  was  held  by  the  proprietary  government  to  he  an  ou- 
croachment  on  its  authorities.* 

For  these  reasons,  and  on  the  g;round  of  the  eriUent 
propriety  of  being  supplied  with  all  the  orders  of  the  minis- 
try, recognised  by  their  ecclesiastical  system,  application 
had  been  made  to  England,  at  different  times,  by  the  clergy, 
especially  those  in  the  northern  colonies,  for  the  obtaining 
of  an  Episcopate.  These  applications  had  produced  much 
contention  in  pamphlets  and  in  newspapers  ;  the  writers  on 
the  Episcopal  side  pleading  the  reasonahleness  of  being  in- 
dulged in  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  religion;  and  their  op- 
ponents objecting,  that  bishops,  sent  from  England  to 
America,  would  of  course  bring  with  them,  or,  if  not,  might 
be  clothed  by  the  paramount  authority  of  Britain,  with  tbe 
powei's  of  English  bishops,  to  the  great  prejudice  of  people 
of  other  communions,  and  in  contrariety  to  the  principles  on 
which  the  settlement  of  the  colonies  had  taken  place. 
What  would  have  been  the  event,  in  this  respect,  had  the 
Episcopal  clergy  succeeded  in  their  desires,  is  a  prohlem, 
■which  it  will  be  for  ever  impossible  to  solve.  In  regard  to 
the  motives  of  the  parties  in  the  dispute,  there  are  circum- 
stances which  charity  may  apply  to  the  most  favourable 
interpretation.  As  the  Episcopal  clergy  disclaimed  the  de- 
signs and  the  expectations  of  which  they  were  accused ; 
and  as  the  same  was  done  by  their  advocates  on  the  other 
side  of  the  water,  particularly  by  the  principal  of  them,  the 
l^reat  and  good  Archbishop  Seeker,  they  ought  to  be  sup- 
posed to  have  had  in  view  an  Episcopacy  purely  religious. 
On  the  other  Iiand,  as  their  opponents  laid  aside  their  re- 
sistance of  the  religious  part  of  it,  as  soon  as  American 
independence  had  done  away  all  political  danger,  if  it  be- 
fore existed,  it  ought  to  be  believed,  that  in  their  former 
professed  apprehensions  they  were  sincere.     A. 

"  The  author,  l>efore  his  being  in  the  ministry,  knew  a  jrenfleuian  (the  Rer. 
Blr.  Edniinston)  who,  being  in  London  ibr  orders,  had  brouglit  with  him  such 
recommendations  to  l>jrd  Baltimore,  proprietary  of  Maryland,  as  induced  tbe 
promise  of  an  order  to  his  governor,  for  any  future  parish  that  might  he  vacant. 
It  was  necessary  after  ordin;ition,  to  show  the  testimonial  of  the  transaction  to  tlie 
proprietary:  who,  perceiving  with  the  instrument  a  license  to  preach  in  tJie 
province  of  Maryland,  was  much  dissatisfied  with  the  bishop  of  London  on  that 
account.  The  bishop  usually  gave  such  a  license,  according  to  the  province  foi 
which  the  party  was  ordained ;  a  practice  similar  to  what  obtains  in  England, 
From  this,  and  from  other  ^-innimstances,  the  conviction  is  felt,  that  his  lordship 
would  not  have  endured  in  his  province  nnv  Episcopal  authority  distinct  from 
hi?  designation  of  the  person.  It  is  mentioned,  as  one  of  the  difficultiet  attendant 
en  the  lubject  of  an  American  Episcopacy. 


20 

If  such  was  the  difficulty  of  hciug  supphcJ  with  a  ministry 
(luring  the  acktiowhxlgeJ  supremacy  of  the  British  crown; 
much  greater,  as  may  be  suj)posed,  was  tiie  samedilliculty 
during  the  struggle  which  ended  in  the  elevating  of  the 
colonics  to  the  rank  of  independent  states.  During  that 
term,  there  was  no  resource  for  the  sui)ply  of  vacancies ; 
which  were  continually  multiplying,  not  only  from  death, 
but  by  the  retreat  of  very  many  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  to 
the  mother  country,  and  to  the  colonics  still  dependent  on 
her.  To  add  to  the  evil,  many  able  and  worthy  ministers, 
cherishing  their  allegiance  to  the  king  of  Great-Britain, 
and  entertaining  conscientious  scruples  against  the  use  of 
the  liturgy,  under  the  restriction  of  omitting  the  appointed 
prayers  for  him,  ceased  to  officiate.  Owing  to  these  cir- 
cumstances, the  doors  of  the  far  greater  number  of  the 
Episcopal  churches  were  closed  for  several  years.  In  the 
state  in  which  this  work  is  edited,  there  was  a  part  of  that 
time,  in  which  there  was,  through  its  whole  extent,  but  one 
resident  minister  of  the  church  in  question,  he  who  records 
the  fact.     B. 

No  sooner  was  it  known  in  America,  that  Great-Britain 
had  acknowledged  her  independence,  than  a  few  young 
gentlemen  to  tiie  southward,  who  had  been  educated  for  the 
ministry,  but  kept  back  from  it  by  the  times,  embarked  for 
England,  and  applied  to  the  then  bishop  of  London,  ])r. 
Lowth,  for  orders.  As  the  bishop  could  not  ordain  them, 
without  requiring  of  them  engagements  inconsistent  with 
their  allegiance  to  the  American  sovereignty,  he  applied  for, 
and  obtained,  an  act  of  parliament,  allowing  him  to  dispense 
with  requisitions  of  that  sort.  While  this  nuittcr  was  de- 
pending, and  the  success  of  the  candidates  was  doubtful, 
there  was  an  incident,  wiiich  it  may  be  proper  to  record,  in 
justice  to  the  intended  gootl  oJiices  of  a  foreign  sister 
church. 

Mr.  Adams,  then  the  minister  of  the  United  States  at 
the  court  of  St.  James,  being  in  company  with  IM.  de  St. 
Saphorin,  the  minister  of  the  crown  of  Denmark,  mentioned 
to  him  the  case  here  stated,  of  the  candidates  for  orders, 
with  a  view  to  his  opinion,  whether  they  could  be  gratified 
in  the  kingdom  which  he  represented.  Some  time  after, 
the  Danish  minister  niade  a  communication  to  the  Ameri- 
can, from  which  it  appeared,  that  the  inquiry  of  the  latter 
had  been  notified  to  the  Danish  court ;  that  the  consequence 
had  been  a  reference  to  the  theological  faculty  of  the  king- 
dom ;  and  that  they  had  declared  their  readiness  to  ordaia 


21 

candidates  froni  America,  on  the  condition  of  their  signing 
of  the  thirty-nine  Articles  of  tlie  Chnrch  of  England,  with 
the  exception  of  the  pohtical  parts  of  them;  the  service  to 
he  performed  in  Latin,  in  accommodation  to  the  candidates, 
who  might  be  supposed  unacquainted  witli  the  language  of 
the  country.  This  conduct  is  here  the  more  cheerfully 
mentioned  to  the  honour  of  the  Danish  Church,  as  it  is  rea- 
sonable to  presume,  that  there  would  have  been  an  equal 
readiness  to  the  consecrating  of  bishops,  had  necessity  re- 
quired a  recourse  for  it  to  any  other  source  than  the 
English  Episcopacy,  under  which  the  American  churches 
had  been  planted.  The  proceeding  in  Denmark  was  made 
known  to  the  American  government  by  Mr.  Adams  ;  a 
copy  of  whose  letter  to  the  president  of  congress,  was  sent 
to  the  author  by  the  then  supreme  executive  council  of 
Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Adams  stated,  that  the  t  ansaction 
arose  from  his  having  been  applied  to  by  an  American 
gentleman,  in  behalf  of  the  candidates  for  ordination  re- 
ferred to.  Mr.  Adams  mentioned  the  matter  to  M.  de  St. 
Saphorin,  the  Danish  minister  ;  who  accordingly  wrote  to 
the  Count  dc  Rosencrone,  i)rivy  counsellor  and  secretary 
of  state  to  the  king  of  Denmark.  The  result  was  as  above 
given. 

In  truth,  there  was  no  idea  of  having  recourse,  in  the 
first  instance,  to  any  other  quarter  than  that  of  the  English 
Episcopacy,  in  the  minds  of  those  who  had  begun  to  direct 
their  attention  to  the  supply  of  the  present  and  the  future 
exigencies  of  the  churches.  But  it  seemed  to  those  at 
least  who  took  up  the  subject  in  the  middle  states,  that 
nothing  could  be  done  to  effect,  without  some  association, 
under  which  the  churches  might  act  as  a  body  :  they  having 
been  heretofore  detached  from,  and  independent  on  one 
anotlicr  ;  excepting  the  bond  of  union  which  had  subsisted 
through  the  medium  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  That 
medium  of  connexion  had  been  confessedly  destroyed  by 
the  revolution  ;  and  therefore  it  was  evident,  that  without 
the  creating  of  some  new  tie,  the  churches  in  the  dift'erent 
states,  and  even  those  in  the  same  state,  might  adopt  such 
varying  measures  as  would  for  ever  prevent  their  being 
combined  in  one  communion. 

The  first  step  towards  the  forming  of  a  collective  body 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  was  taken 
at  a  meeting  for  another  purpose,  of  a  few  clergymen  of 
New- York,  New- Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  at  Brunswick, 
in  Kew-Jeisey,  on  the  13th  and  14th  of  May,  1784.   These 


22 

dergrmcn,  in  consequence  of  prior  604'respondeucG«  had 
met  for  the  purpose  of  consulting,  in  what  way  to  renew  a 
society  that  had  existed  under  charters  of  incorporation 
from  the  governors  of  the  said  three  states,  for  the  Support 
of  Widows  and  Children  of  deceased  Clergymen.  Here  it 
was  determined,  to  procure  a  larger  meeting  on  the  fifth  of 
the  ensuing  October,  in  New-York ;  not  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reviving  the  said  charitable  institution,  but  to  confer 
and  agree  on  some  general  principles  of  an  union  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  throughout  the  states.     C. 

Such  a  meeting  was  held,  at  the  time  and  place  agreed 
on:  and  although  the  members  composing  it  were  not 
vested  with  powers  adequate  to  the  present  exigencies  of 
the  Church,  they  happily,  and  with  great  unanimity,  laid 
down  a  few  general  principles,  to  be  recommended  in  the 
respective  states,  as  the  ground  on  which  a  future  ecclesi- 
astical government  should  be  established.  These  principles 
were  approbatory  of  Episcopacy  and  of  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer ;  and  provided  for  a  representative  body  of  the 
Church,  consisting  of  clergy  and  laity ;  who  were  to  vote 
as  distinct  orders.  There  was  also  a  recommendation  to 
the  Church  in  the  several  states,  to  send  clerical  and  lay 
deputies  to  a  meeting  to  be  held  in  Philadelphia,  on  the 
27th  of  September  in  the  following  year.     D. 

Although  at  the  meeting  last  held,  there  were  present 
two  clergymen  from  the  eastern  states  ;  yet  it  now  ap- 
peared, that  there  was  no  probability,  for  the  present,  of 
the  aid  of  the  churches  in  those  states,  in  the  measures 
begun  for  the  obtaining  of  a  representative  body  of  the 
Church  at  large.  From  this  they  thought  themselves 
restrained  in  Connecticut,  in  particular,  by  a  step  they  had 
antecedently  taken,  for  the  obtaining  of  an  Episcopate  from 
England.  For  until  the  event  of  their  application  could  be 
known,  it  naturally  seemed  to  them  inconsistent  to  do  any 
thing  which  might  change  the  ground  on  which  the  gentle- 
man of  their  choice  was  then  standing.  Tliis  gentleman 
was  the  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D.  formerly  missionary 
on  Staten-lsland  ;  who  had  been  recommended  to  England 
for  consecration  before  the  evacuation  of  New- York  by  the 
British  army. 

On  the  27th  of  September,  1785,  there  assembled, 
agreeably  to  appointment,  in  Philadelphia,  a  convention  of 
clerical  and  lay  dejiuties,  from  seven  of  the  thirteen  United 
States,  viz.  from  New- York  to  Virginia,  inclusive,  with 
the  addition  of  South-CaroUna.     They  applied  themselves 


23 

to  the  making  of  sucli  alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  as  were  necessary  for  the  accommodating  of  it  to 
the  late  changes  in  the  state ;  and  the  proposing,  hut  not 
establishing,  of  such  other  alterations  in  that  book  and  in 
the  articles,  as  they  thought  an  improvement  of  the  service 
and  of  the  manner  of  stating  the  principal  articles  of  faith; 
these  were  published  in  a  book,  ever  since  knovvo  by  the 
name  of  the  proposed  book.     E. 

The  convention  entered  on  the  business  of  the  Episco- 
pacy, with  the  knowledge  that  there  was  now  a  bishop 
in  Connecticut,  consecrated,  not  in  England,  but  by  the 
non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland.  For  Dr.  Seabury,  nol 
meeting  assurance  of  success  with  the  bishops  of  tlie 
former  country,  had  applied  to  the  latter  quarter  for  the 
succession,  which  had  been  there  carefully  maintained; 
notwithstanding  their  severance  from  the  state,  in  the  revo- 
hition  of  1688.  Bishop  Seabury  had  returned  to  America, 
and  had  entered  on  the  exercise  of  his  new  function,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  preceding  summer,  and  two  or  three  gen- 
tlemen of  the  southern  states  had  received  ordination  from 
his  hands.  Nevertheless,  the  members  of  this  convention, 
although  generally  impressed  with  sentiments  of  respect 
towards  the  new  bishop,  and  although,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few,  alleging  nothing  against  the  validity  of  his  Epis- 
copacy, thought  it  the  most  pro{)er  to  direct  their  views  ia 
the  first  instance  towards  England.  In  this  they  were  en- 
couraged by  information  which  they  thought  authentic,  as- 
signing for  Dr.  Seabury's  failure  these  two  reasons;  that 
the  administration  had  some  apprehension  of  embroiling 
themselves  with  the  American  government,  the  sovereignty 
of  which  they  had  so  recently  acknowledged;  and  that  the 
bishops  were  doubtful  how  far  the  act  of  some  clergymen, 
in  their  individual  capacities,  would  be  acquiesced  in  by 
their  respective  flocks.  For  the  meeting  of  the  former 
difficulty,  it  was  thought  easy  to  obtain,  and  there  were 
afterwards  obtained,  from  the  executive  authorities  of  the 
states  in  which  the  new  bishops  were  to  reside,  certificates, 
that  what  was  sought  did  not  interfere  with  any  civil  laws 
or  constitutions.  The  latter  difficulty  was  thought  suffi- 
ciently obviated  by  the  powers  under  which  the  present 
convention  was  assembled. 

Accordingly,  they  addressed  the  archbishops  and  bishops 
of  England,  stating,  that  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  had  been  severed,  by  a  civil  revolution,  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  parent  Church  in  England;  acknow- 


24 

ledglng  the  favours  formerly  received  from  the  bishops  of 
London  in  particular,  and  from  the  archbisliops  and  bishops 
in  general,  through  the  medium  of  the  Society  for  Propa- 
gating the  Gosi)el ;  declaring  their  desire  to  perpetuate- 
among  them  the  principles  of  the  Church  of  England,  in 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship ;  and  praying,  thai  their 
lordships  would  consecrate  to  the  Episcopacy  those  persons 
who  should  be  sent,  with  that  view,  from  the  churthes  in 
any  of  the  states  respectively. 

In  order  that  the  present  convention  might  be  succeeded 
by  bodies  of  the  like  description,  they  framed  an  ecclesias- 
tical constitution,  the  outlines  of  which  were,  that  there 
should  be  a  triennial  convention,  consisting  of  a  deputation 
from  the  Church  in  each  state,  of  not  more  than  four  clergy- 
men, and  as  many  laymen;  that  they  should  vote  statewise, 
each  order  to  have  a  negative  on  the  other;  that  when 
there  should  be  a  bishop  in  any  state,  he  should  be  officially 
a  member  of  the  convention ;  that  the  different  orders  of 
clergy  should  be  accountable  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority 
in  the  state  only  to  which  they  should  respectively  belong ; 
and  that  the  engagement  previous  to  ordination  should  be  a 
declaration  of  belief  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  a  promise 
of  conformity  to  the  doctrines  and  the  worship  of  the 
Church. 

Further,  the  convention  appointed  a  committee,  with 
various  powers;  among  which  was,  that  of  corresponding, 
during  the  recess,  with  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of 
England ;  and  they  adjourned,  to  meet  again  in  Philadel- 
phia, on  the  20th  of  June,  in  the  following  year. 

After  the  rising  of  the  convention,  their  address  to  the 
English  prelates  was  forwarded  by  the  committee  to  his 
Excellency  John  Adams,  Esq.  the  American  minister,  with 
the  rerpiest,  that  it  might  be  delivered  by  him  to  his  Grace 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  There  were  also  forwarded 
certificates  from  the  executives  of  the  states  in  which  there 
was  a  probability  of  there  being  bishops  chosen.  The  ex- 
ecutives  who  gave  these  certificates  were  those  of  New- York, 
Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  Virginia.  These  evidences, 
agreeably  to  instructions  of  the  convention,  were  applied 
for  by  the  members  of  that  body  from  the  said  states  re- 
pectively.  Mr.  Adams  willingly  performed  the  service 
solicited  of  him,  and  in  a  conversation  which  he  held  with 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  on  the  subject  of  the  address, 
gave  such  information,  and  expressed  such  sentiments,  as 
were  calculated  to  promote  the  object  of  it.     F. 


25 


In  the  spring  of  the  year  1786  the  committee  teceived 
an  answer,  signed  by  the  two  archbishops,  and  eighteen  of 
the  twenty-four  bishops   of  England,  acknowledging   the 
receipt  of  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  the  Christian  and 
Brotherly  Address  of  the  Convention,  and  declaring  their 
wish  to  comply  with  the  desire  of  it ;  but  delaying  measure* 
to  the  effect,  until  there  should  be  laid  before  them  the 
alterations  which  had  been  made  by  the  convention:    it 
having  been  represented  to  the  bishops,  through  private 
channels,  that  the  aherations  were  essential  deviations  from 
the  Church  of  England,  either  in  doctrine  or  in  discipline^ 
Not  long  after  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  the  committee 
received  another  from  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York,  to  whom  the  management  of  the  business  had  been 
left  by  their  brethren,  after  a  second  meeting  of  the  body, 
informing,  that  they  had  received  the  edited  ]jook  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  in  regard  to  which  they  declared,  that  besides 
their  seeing  of  no  occasion  for  some  smaller  alterations, 
which  they  do  not  specify,  they  are  dissatisfied  with  the 
omission  of  the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian  Creeds,  and  of 
the  descent  into  hell  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.     And  they 
further  declare  their  disapprobation  of  an  article  in  the 
proposed  constitution,  which  seemed  to  them  to  subject  the 
future  bishops  to  a  trial  by  the  presbyters  and  the  laymen, 
in  the  respective  states.     This,  however,  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  the  meaning  of  the  article  alluded  to ;  which 
expresses  no  more  than  that  laws  for  the  trial  of  bishops 
should  be  made,  not  by  the  general,   but  by  each   state 
ecclesiastical   representative.     The   prelates   went   on   to 
inform  the  committee,  that  they  were  likely  to  obtain  an 
act  of  parliament,  enabling  them  to  consecrate  for  America. 
They,  however,  expected,  that  before  they  should  proceed 
under  the  act,  satisfaction  should  be  given  in  reo-ard  to  the 
matters  stated.     The  same  communication  laid  down  what 
would  be  required,  in  regard  to  the  characters  individually, 
who  should  be  sent  for  consecration.     As  to  faith,  they 
were  to  make  the  subscription  which  the  American  Church 
had  prescribed,  to  future  candidates  for  orders.     On  the 
subject  of  learning,  it  was  thought  disrespectful  to  the 
persons  to  be  sent,  to  subject  them  to  an  examination,  it 
being  at  the  same  time  trusted,  that  the  American  Church 
would  be  aware  of  the  disparagement  of  the  Episcopacy, 
which  would  be  the  result  of  its  being  conferred  on  persons 
not  sufficiently  respectable  in  point  of  literary  qualification. 
In  order  to  give  satisfaction  in  regard  to  the  religious  and 

4 


\ 

26 

morcil  character  of  each  person  to  be  sent,  the  archbishops 
required,  that  it  should  be  testified  by  the  convention 
choosinj^  him ;  and,  in  addition,  that  there  should  be  a  cer- 
tificate from  the  General  Convention,  to  the  eflfect  that  they 
knew  no  reason  why  the  person  should  not  be  consecrated 
to  the  Episcopal  office.  These  determinations  are  given 
as  the  result  of  a  consultation  of  the  two  archbishops  and 
fifteen  of  the  bishops,  being  all  who  were  at  the  time  in 
town.  Soon  after  the  letter  from  the  two  archbishops, 
there  came  one  from  the  archbishop  of  Canterbuiy  alone, 
enclosing  the  act  of  parliament. 

After  the  receipt  of  the  first  of  the  letters  of  the  English 
prelates,  and  before  the  receipt  of  the  second,  the  General 
Convention  assembled,  agreeably  to  appointment,  in  Phila- 
delphia, on  the  20th  of  June,  1786.  The  principal  business 
transacted  by  them,  was  another  address  to  the  English 
prelates,  containing  an  acknowledgment  of  their  friendly 
and  afi'ectionate  letter,  a  declaration  of  not  intending  to 
depart  from  the  doctrines  of  the  English  Church,  and  a 
determination  of  making  no  further  alterations  than  such 
as  either  arose  from  a  change  of  circumstances,  or  appeared 
conducive  to  union ;  and  a  repetition  of  the  prayer  for  the 
succession.  Before  their  adjournment,  they  appointed  a 
committee,  with  power  to  reassemble  them,^  if  thought 
expedient,  at  Wilmington,  in  the  state  of  Delaware. 

On  the  committee's  receipt  of  the  second  letter,  they 
summoned  the  convention  to  meet,  at  the  place  appointed, 
on  the  10th  of  October  following.  The  principal  matter 
which  occupied  the  body  when  assembled,  was  the  question, 
how  far  they  should  accommodate  to  the  requisitions  of  the 
English  prelates. 

The  difficulty  concerning  the  oflfensive  article  of  the 
constitution  had  been  done  away  before  the  arrival  of  the 
objection  of  the  archbishops.  This  objection,  as  already 
observed,  was  grounded  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  design 
of  the  article.  But  another  objection  had  been  made  within 
the  American  Church,  on  the  score  of  there  being  no  express 
provision  for  the  presidency  of  a  bishop  in  conventions  and 
in  ecclesiastical  trials.  This  objection  had  gained  so  much 
ground,  that,  in  the  session  of  June,  it  had  been  fully 
satisfied ;  which  had  more  than  done  away  the  ground  of 
the  censure  of  the  prelates.  The  omission  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  had  been  generally  regretted;  and,  aceonlingly,  it 
was  now,  without  debate  or  difficulty,  restored  to  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  to  stand  after  the  Apostles'  Creed,  with 


27 

permission  of  the  use  of  either.  The  clause  in  the  latter 
creed,  of  the  descent  into  hell,  occasioned  considerable  de- 
bate, but  it  was  finally  restored.  The  restoration  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed  was  negatived.  The  result  of  the  de- 
liberations of  the  convention  was  addressed  to  the  two 
archbishops,  with  thanks  for  their  fatherly  attention  to  the 
Church,  especially  in  procuring  legal  permission  for  the 
conveying  of  the  succession. 

The  deputies  from  the  several  states  were  called  on, 
beginning  from  the  northward,  for  information,  whether 
any  persons  had  been  chosen  in  them  respectively,  to  pro- 
ceed to  England  for  consecration :  when  it  appeared,  that 
the  Rev.  Samuel  Provoost,  D.  D.  rector  of  Trinity  Church, 
in  the  city  of  New- York,  had  been  chosen  for  that  purpose 
by  the  convention  in  that  state ;  that  the  Rev.  William 
White,  D.  D.  rector  of  Christ  Church  and  St.  Peter's,  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  had  been  chosen  by  the  convention 
in  Pennsylvania ;  and  that  the  Rev.  David  Griffith,  D.  D. 
rector  of  Fairfax  Parish,  Virginia,  had  been  chosen  by  the 
convention  there.  Testimonials  in  their  favour  from  the 
conventions  in  the  respective  states,  agreeable  to  the  form 
prescribed  by  the  archbishops,  were  laid  before  the  General 
Convention,  who  immediately  signed,  in  favour  of  each  of 
the  bishops  elect,  a  testimonial,  according  to  the  form  pre- 
scribed to  them  by  the  same  authority.     G. 

The  two  former  of  the  above-named  clergymen,  having 
embarked  together  early  in  the  next  month,  arrived  at 
Falmouth,  after  a  passage  of  eighteen  days.  On  their 
reaching  of  London,  they  were  introduced  to  his  Grace  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  by  his  Excellency  Mr.  Adams, 
who,  in  this  particular,  and  in  every  instance  in  which  his 
personal  attentions  could  be  either  of  use  o^"  an  evidence  of 
his  respect  and  kindness,  continued  to  manifest  his  concern 
for  the  interests  of  a  church,  of  which  he  was  not  a  member. 

Before  the  accomplishing  of  the  object  of  the  voyage, 
there  occurred  the  delay  of  a  few  weeks ;  owing  to  the 
archbishop's  desire  of  previously  laying  before  the  bishops 
the  grounds  of  his  proceeding  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
business,  in  the  early  stages  of  which  they  had  been  con- 
sulted. The  greater  number  of  them  were  at  their  diocesses, 
but  wclrc  expected  to  be  in  town  at  the  ensuing  opening  of 
j)arliament,  appointed  for  about  the  middle  of  January. 
V^ery  soon  afterwards,  the  4th  of  February,  was  appointed 
for  the  consecration. 

On  that  day,  and  in  the  chapel  of  the  archiepiscopa!  pa- 


26 

laeeof  Lainbetli,  Dr.  Wiiitc  and  Dr.  Provoost  wcrertrdaiucd 
and  cotisecratcd  bishops,  by  tlie  l\iost  Kcv.  John  Moore, 
archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The  Most  Kev.  WilHani  Mark- 
ham,  arcld)ishop  of  York,  presented.  And  the  bishops 
who  joined  with  the  two  archbishops  in  the  imposition  of 
hands,  were  the  Jiight  Rev.  Charles  Moss,  bishoj)  of  Bath 
and  VVells,  and  the  Right  Rev.  John  Ilinchbff,  bishop  of 
Peterborough.  Before  the  end  of  the  same  month,  thq 
newly  consecrated  bishops  sailed  from  Falmouth  for  New- 
York,  where  they  arrived  on  Easter  Sunday,  April  the  7th, 
and  soon  afterwards  began  the  exercise  of  the  Episcopacy 
in  their  respective  diocesses.     H. 

On  the  2Sth  of  July,  1789,  there  assembled  the  Triennial 
Convention,  by  whom  the  Episcopacy  of  Bishops  White  and 
Provoost,  of  whom  the  former  only  was  present,  the  latter 
being  detained  by  sickness,  was  duly  recognised.     At  this 
convention,    there    naturally   occurred  the  importance   of 
taking  measures  for  the  perpetuating  of  the  succession  :  a 
matter,  which  some  circumstances  had  subjected  to  consi- 
derable difficulty.     The  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith  had  been  pre- 
vented by  occurrences  in  his  domestic  situation,  from  prose- 
cuting his  intended  voyage  to  England,  and  had  given  in 
his  resignation  to  the  convention  in  Virginia.     Tn  conse- 
quence of  their  direction,  the  resignation  was  notified  to  the 
General  Convention,  on  the  first  day  of  their  entering  on 
business.     The  doctor  himself  had  come  to  attend  it,  as 
one  of  the  deputies  from  Virginia;  but  his  attendance  was 
prevented  by  sickness,  which  ended  in  his  dissolution  during 
the  session.     The  subject  of  perpetuating  the  succession 
from  England,  with  the  relation  which  it  bore  to  the  question 
of  embracing  that  from  the  Scotch  Episcopacy,  was  brought 
into  view  by  a  measure  of  the  clergy  in  Massachusetts  and 
New-Hampshire.     This  body  had  elected  the  Rev.  Edward 
Bass,  rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church  in  Newburyport,  their 
bishop ;  and  had  addressed  a  letter  to  the  bishops  in  Con- 
necticut, New- York,  and  Pennsylvania,  praying  them  to 
unite  in  consecrating  him.     The  last  of  these  bishops,  being 
the  only  one  of  them  now  present  in  convention,  laid  tiie 
letter  addressed  lo  him  before  the  body,  intimating  his  sin- 
cere wish  to  join  in  such  measures  as  they  might  adopt,  for 
the  forming  of  a  permanent  union  with  the  churches  in  the^ 
eastern  states,  but  at  the  same  time  expressing  his  doubt  of 
its  being  consistent  with  the  faith  impliedly  pledged  to  the 
English  prelates,  to  proceed  to  any  consecration,  without 
first  obtaining  from  them  the  number  held  in  their  Church 


29 

t'o  be  canonically  necessary  to  such  an  acl.  This  sentiment, 
which  he  also  supposed  to  be  entertained  by  the  gentleman 
who  had  been  consecrated  with  him,  was  duly  respected  by 
the  body,  while  tl>ey  manifested  an  earnest  desire  of  the 
union  alluded  to;  and,  with  a  view  to  it,  voted  their  opinion 
in  favour  of  the  validity  of  Bishop  Seabury's  consecration; 
in  which  their  president  concurred. 

In  order  to  carry  the  sentiments  of  the  convention  into 
effect,  they  signified  their  request  to  the  two  bishops  con- 
secrated hi  England,  thai  they  would  unite  with  Bishop 
Seabury  in  the  consecration  of  Mr.  Bass  ;  and  they  framed 
an  address  to  tlic  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England,  re- 
questing their  approbation  of  the  measure,  for  the  removing 
of  any  difHculty  or  delicacy  which  might  remain  on  the  minds 
of  the  bishops  whom  they  had  already  consecrated.  And  here 
it  may  be  proper  to  record,  that  the  difficulty  was  not  long 
after  removed  in  another  way  by  the  convention  of  Virginia, 
in  their  electing  of  the  Rev.  James  Madison,  D.  D.  presi- 
dent of  William  and  Mary  College,  Williamsburg,  their 
bishop;  and  by  his  being  consecrated  in  England. 

At  the  present  session  of  the  General  Convention,  the 
constitution  formed  in  1786  was  reviewed  and  new  modelled. 
The  principal  feature  now  given  to  it,  was  a  distribution 
into  two  houses,  one  consisting  of  the  bishops,  and  the  other 
of  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  who  must  vote,  when  re- 
quired by  the  clerical  or  by  the  lay  rejjresentation  from  any 
state,  as  under  the  former  constitution,  by  orders.  The 
stated  meetings  were  to  be  on  the  second  Tuesday  in  Sep- 
tember in  every  third  year;  but  intermediate  meetings 
might  be  called  by  the  bishops. 

When  the  convention  adjourned,  it  was  to  the  29th  of 
September  following  :  and  before  the  adjournment,  an  invi- 
tation was  given  by  them  to  Bishop  Seabury,  and  to  their 
brethren  generally  in  the  eastern  states,  to  be  present  at  the 
proposed  session,  with  a  view  to  a  permanent  union. 

On  that  day  the  convention  reassembled,  when  it  ap- 
peared that  Bishop  Seabury,  with  sundry  of  the  clergy  from 
Blassachusetts  and  Connecticut,  had  accepted  the  invitation 
given  them.  There  was  laid  before  the  convention,  and 
by  them  ordered  to  be  recorded,  evidence  of  that  bishop's 
consecration ;  which  had  been  performed  by  Bishops  Kil- 
gour,  Petrie,  and  Skinner,  of  the  non-juring  Church  in 
Scotland.  There  then  ensued  a  conference  between  a 
committee  of  the  convention  and  the  clergy  from  the 
eastern  states;  the  result  of  which  was,  that,  after  one 


30 

alteration  of  the  constitution  at  their  desire,  they  declared 
their  acquiescence  in  it,  and  gave  it  their  signatures  accord- 

It  had  been  provided  in  the  constitution,  that  the  arrange- 
ment of  two  houses  should  take  place,  as  soon  as  three 
bishops  should  belong  to  the  body.  This  circumstance  now 
occurred,  although  there  were  present  only  two  of  them, 
who  accordingly  formed  the  House  of  Bishops. 

The  two  houses  entered  on  a  review  of  the  liturgy ,  the 
bishops  originating  alterations  in  some  services,  and  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  proposing  others.  The 
result  was  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  then  established* 
and  has  been  ever  since  used. 

Some  canons  had  been  passed  in  the  preceding  session ; 
but  they  were  reconsidered  and  passed  with  sundry  others, 
which  continue  to  this  day  substantially  the  same;  but  with 
some  alterations  and  additions  by  succeeding  conven- 
tions.    I. 

The  next  Triennial  Convention  was  held  in  the  city  of 
New- York,  in  the  autumn  of  1792,  at  which  were  present 
the  four  bishops  already  mentioned  to  have  been  consecrated 
abroad.  Hitherto  there  had  been  no  consecration  in 
America;  but  at  this  convention,  although  nothing  further 
was  brought  before  them  from  Massachusetts,  relative  to 
Dr.  Bass,  the  deputies  from  Maryland  applied  to  the  as- 
sembled bishops  for  the  consecration  of  the  Rev.  Thomas 
John  Claggett,  D.  D.  who  had  been  elected  bishop  by  the 
convention  of  that  state.  Dr.  Claggett  was  accordingly 
consecrated,  during  the  session  of  the  convention,  in  Trinity 
Church,  of  the  city  in  which  they  were  assembled.* 

The  bishops,  having  reviewed  the  ordinal  of  the  Church 
of  England,  proposed  a  few  alterations  in  it  to  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies ;  principally  such  as  were 
necessary  for  the  accommodating  of  it  to  local  circum- 
stances. The  ordinal,  thus  reviewed,  is  now  the  established 
form  for  the  consecrating  of  bishops  and  the  ordaining  of 
priests  and  deacons.     K. 

In  September,  1795,  there  was  held  another  Triennial 
Convention,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia;  at  which  were 
present  all  the  bishops,  except  Bishop  Seabury.  Besides 
other  matters  acted  on,  some  canons  were  made ;  and  a 
service  was  ordered  for  the  consecrating  of  a  chureh  or 


*  Dr.  ClaggRtt  was  consecrated  by  Bifhop  Provoost^  who  presided  at  thu 
coavenlion,  assisted  by  Bishops  Seabury^  White,  and  Madison. 


31 

cUapel.  It  is  substantially  the  same  with  a  service  com- 
posed by  Bishop  Andrews,  iu  the  reign  of  Jaraes  the  First; 
and  since  commonly  used  by  the  English  bishops  in  such 
consecration ;  but  without  the  authority  of  convocation  or 
of  parliament.  During  the  session,  there  took  place  the 
consecration  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Smith,  D.  D.  rector  of 
St.  Philip's,  in  Charleston,  South-Carolina;  who  had  been 
elected  by  the  convention  in  that  state  their  bishop.*     L. 

Between  this  and  the  next  convention,  there  was  con- 
secrated the  Rev.  Edward  Bass  ;  again  recommended  from 
Massachusetts  and  New-Hampshire  ;  the  certificate  usually 
given  on  such  occasions  by  the  General  Convention,  being 
in  this  instance  given  by  a  standing  committee  of  that 
body,  agreeably  to  a  provision  which  had  been  made  to 
that  effect.t 

And  on  the  18th  of  October  of  the  same  year,  there  was 
consecrated,  in  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New-Haven, 
the  Rev.  Abraham  Jarvis,  D.  D.  for  the  state  of  Connec- 
ticut.J 

There  would  have  been  a  convention  in  Philadelphia,  in 
September,  1798  ;  but  the  prevalence  of  epidemical  disease 
preventing  their  assembling,  the  bishops,  agreeably  to  a 
power  vested  in  them  when  desired  by  a  standing  commit- 
tee of  the  convention,  summoned  that  body  to  meet,  in  the 
same  city,  on  the  11th  of  June,  1799.  On  this  occasion,  the 
review  of  the  articles  was  moved  in  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies.  And  a  committee  was  appointed,  who 
drew  up  a  body  of  articles;  which  were  not  acted  on,  but 
ordered  to  be  printed  on  the  journal,  as  a  report  of  a 
committee  of  one  of  the  houses,  to  lie  over  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  next  convention  ;  which  was  appointed  to 
be  in  the  city  of  Trenton,  New-Jersey.     M. 

It  assembled  there,  in  September,  1801;  when  there 
was  brought  before  the  bishops  present  at  it,  three  ia 
number,  the  question  of  the  admissibility  of  a  resignation 
of  the  Episcopal  charge.  A  letter  from  Bishop  Provoost 
had  been  addressed  to  one  of  the  bishops  present,  and  by 
iiini  laid   before  the  house,  stating,  that,  induced  by  ill 


•  The  consecration  of  Dr.  Smith  was  by  the  presiding  bishop,  assisted  far 
Bishops  Provoost,  Madison,  and  Claggett. 

t  The  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass  was  in  Christ  Church,  in  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia, May  7th,  1797,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  assisted  by  Bishops'Provoost  and 
Claggetl. 

t  The  consecration  of  Dr.  Jarvis  was  by  Bishop  White,  assisted  by  Bishopt 
Provoost  and  Bass.  j  r 


32 

health  and  some  circumstances  of  a  domestic  nature,  h« 
wished  to  retire  from  all  public  employment ;  and  had 
therefore  resigned,  at  a  late  meeting  of  the  convention  in 
New- York,  his  jurisdiction  of  bishop  in  that  state,  lu 
consequence  of  this  resignation,  the  Her.  Benjamin  Moore, 
D.  D.  who,  on  account  of  Bishop  Provoost's  resignation  of 
the  rectory  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  jNew-York^ 
had  been  chosen  to  that  place,  was  also  elected  to  swcceed 
to  the  Episcopacy.  The  House  of  Bishops  having  taken 
this  subject  under  their  serious  consideration,  and  doubting- 
of  the  propriety  of  sanctioning  Episcopal  "resignation,  de- 
clined any  act  to  that  effect.  But  being  sensible  of  the 
exigency  existing  in  the  state  of  New- York,  they  consented 
to  the  consecration  of  an  assistant  bishop:  it  being  under- 
stood, that  he  should  be  competent  in  point  of  character  to 
all  the  Episcopal  duties;  and,  that  the  extent  in  which  the 
same  were  to  be  discharged  by  him,  should  be  dependent 
on  such  regulations  as  expediency  might  dictate  to  the 
Church  in  New- York  ;  grounded  on  the  indisposition  of 
Bishop  Provoost,  and  with  his  concurrence.  Conformably 
with  the  line  of  conduct  thus  laid  down,  Dr.  Benjamin 
Moore,  being  duly  recommended,  was  consecrated  during 
the  session,  in  St.  Michael's  Church,  Trenton ;  and  took 
his  seat  in  the  House  of  Bishojjs. 

In  this  convention,  the  important  business  of  the  articles 
was  again  taken  up ;  and  now,  for  the  first  time,  authori- 
tatively acted  on.  After  repeated  discussions  and  propo- 
sitions, it  had  been  found,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel, 
as  they  stand  in  the  thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  with  the  exception  of  such  matters  as  are  local, 
were  more  likely  to  give  general  satisfaction  than  the 
same  doctrines  in  any  new  form  that  might  be  devised. 
The  former  were  therefore  adopted  by  the  two  houses  of 
convention,  without  their  altering  of  even  the  obsolete 
diction  in  them  ;  but  with  notices  of  such  changes  as  change 
of  situation  had  rendered  necessary.  Exclusively  of  such, 
there  is  one  exception,  that  of  adapting  the  article  con- 
cerning the  creeds,  to  the  former  exclusion  of  the  Athanar 
sian. 

It  is  farther  to  be  remembered,  that,  in  regard  to  sub- 
scription to  the  articles,  there  is  a  considerable  difference 
between  the  form  required  in  the  Church  of  England,  as 
laid  down  in  her  thirty-sixth  canon,  and  that  prescribed  in 
the  constitution  of  the  American  Church.  The  latter  fonu 
had  so  far  acquirwl  the  approbation  of  the  English  prelates. 


33 

as  to  be  thou<Tlit  sufficient  on  the  part  of  those  who  came  to 
them  for  consecration  from  America.      N. 

Throughout  this  Narrative,  it  must  have  appeared,  that 
the  object  kept  in  view,  in  all  the  consultations  held,  and 
the  determinations  formed,  was  the  perpetuating  of  the 
Episcopal  (/luirch,  on  the  ground  of  the  general  principles 
whicb  she  had  inherited  from  the  Church  of  England  ;  and 
of  not  departing  from  them,  except  so  far  as  eitlier  local 
circumstances  required,  or  some  very  important  cause 
rendered  proper.  To  those  acquainted  with  the  system  of 
the  Church  of  England,  it  must  be  evident,  that  the  object 
here  stated  was  accomplished  on  the  ratification  of  the 
articles. 

The  next  Triennial  Convention  was  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  September  lith,  1804.  Canons  were  passed,  ex- 
tending to  a  greater  variety  of  objects  than  had  been 
provided  for  before.  An  office  was  framed  and  ordered  to 
bo  used,  at  the  induction  of  ministers  to  the  rectorship  of 
churches.  A  course  of  ecclesiastical  studies  of  candidates 
for  orders,  was  prescribed  by  the  bishops.  And  the  con- 
.stitution  was  altered,  agreeably  to  a  proposition  made  in 
the  preceding  convention,  and  notified  to  the  conventions  in 
the  states,  so  as  that  the  future  Triennial  ('onventions  shall 
be  in  the  month  of  May,  instead  of  September.  During 
the  session,  tho  Rev.  Samuel  Parker,  D.  D.  rector  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  Boston,  was  consecrated  bishop  in 
Trinity  Church,  New- York,  in  the  room  of  IJishop  Bass, 
who  had  departed  this  life.  There  had  also  died,  since  the 
last  convention.  Bishop  Smith,  of  South-Carolina.  And  it 
was  understood,  that  the  Rev.  Edward  Jenkins,  I).  D.  who 
had  been  elected  to  supply  his  place,  had  declined  the 
station.  Since  the  events  here  recorded,  Bishop  Parker- 
departed  this  life,  a  few  months  after  his  consecration.    O. 

The  next  meeting  of  the  General  Convention  was  in  the 
city  of  Baltimore,  from  May  17th,  !808,  to  the  2()th  of  the 
same  month.  Two  bishops  only  (Bishops  White  and  Clag- 
gett)  were  present  at  this  convention:  and  the  Church  in 
seven  states  only  was  represented. 

There  was  now  ratified  the  long  proposed  amendment 
of  the  constitution;  annulling  the  provision,  by  which  four- 
fifths  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  could  ac- 
complish a  measure,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  House 
of  Bishops. 

There  was  also  proposed  another  amendment  of  the 
eonstitution,  for  the  preventing  of  alterations  in  the  liturgy, 

3 


34 

unless  the  same  sliould  have  been  proposed  at  a  previous 
convention. 

The  whole  body  of  the  canons  was  reviewed,  and  un- 
derwent considerable  alterations. 

A  committee  was  appointed,  to  address  the  Church  in 
the  different  states.  The  objects  in  view,  were  to  procuro 
a  more  full  attendance  on  future  conventions,  and  to  extend 
the  Episco()ucy  to  the  western  states. 

"  The  Office  of  Induction,"  established  by  the  last  con- 
vention, was  changed  in  name  to  "  The  Office  of  Institu- 
tion," and  rested  on  recommendation,  not  on  requisition, 
as  before. 

The  sense  of  the  two  houses  was  given  on  two  points, 
which  bad  created  diversity  of  opinion  and  of  practice — 
Whether  a  minister  ought  to  officiate  at  the  ftmeral  of  any 
person  killed  in  a  duel ;  and — Wiiether  a  minister  should 
ui>ite  in  marriage  any  person  who  has  been  divorced;  un- 
less it  be  on  account  of  the  other  party's  having  been  guilty 
of  adultery.  Botii  these  questions  were  decided  in  the 
negative. 

There  was  also  introduced  into  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  on  recommendation  of  the  Churcli  in  Mary- 
land, the  subject  of  marriage,  as  connected  with  the  degrees 
of  consanguitiity  and  affinity.  IJut  on  communication  of 
the  matter  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  it  was,  on  their  recora- 
mendation,  referred  to  a  future  convention. 

Thirty  hymns  were  added  to  the  Book  of  Psalms  and 
Hymns. 

As  ordained  by  a  canon  of  the  last  convention,  a  pastoral 
letter  from  the  House  of  Bishops  to  the  members  of  thi» 
Church  was  drawn  up  by  them,  communicated  to  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  and  there  read. 

On  the  rising  of  the  convention,  New-Haven,  in  the  state 
of  Connecticut,  was  appointed  as  the  next  place  of  meeting. 
The  session  was  ended,  by  an  attendance  on  the  morning 
service  of  the  day,  which  was  the  festival  of  the  Ascension. 
P. 

Agreeably  to  the  aforesaid  appointment,  the  next  General 
Convention  was  held  in  the  city  of  New-Haven,  on  Tuesday, 
the  21st  of  May,  181L  It  continued  in  session  until  Friday, 
the  24th.  Only  Bishops  AVhite  and  Jarvis,  of  the  House 
of  Bishops,  were  present.  The  Church  in  nine  states  was 
represented. 

They  ratified  the  amendment  to  the  constitution  proposed 
at  the  last  convention,  restraining  from  alterations  of  the 


35 

liturgy,  except  such  as  may  be  proposed  at  one  convention 
and  determined  on  at  another. 

On  the  subject  of  the  canons,  nothing  was  done,  except 
the  repeahng  of  the  last,  or  forty-sixth  of  the  canons,  as 
passed  at  the  last  convention,  entitled,  "  Providing  for 
making  known  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  Church." 

Tlie  rule  prohibiting  the  othciating  at  the  funerals  of 
persons  killed  in  duels,  was  so  far  moderated,  as  to  allow 
of  the  same,  if,  on  any  occasion,  the  party  in  question  had 
manifested  repentance. 

Tliere  were  some  communications  made  in  regard  to  the 
western  churches,  and  the  extending  of  the  Episcopacy  to 
them  ;  but  a  plan  to  that  effect  was  not  yet  matured. 
Further  attention  to  the  subject  was  committed  to  the 
bishops  of  this  Church  in  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia. 

The  attendance  of  so  i'ew  of  the  bishops;  three  of  the 
four  absent  bishops  being  prevented  by  bodily  indisposition, 
and  the  remaining  bishop  being  absent  by  indispensable 
engagements  ;  it  was  agreed  not  to  take  up,  at  present, 
the  important  subject  of  marriages,  within  certain  degrees 
of  consanguinity  and  affinity. 

A  |>astoral  address  was  sent  by  the  bishops  to  the  other 
house,  to  be  printed  with  the  journal,  agreeably  to  a  requi- 
sition of  the  forty-iifth  canon. 

It  had  been  expected,  that  on  the  occasion  of  this  con- 
vention, there  would  have  been  a  consecration  of  two 
bishops  :  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  ilobart,  chosen 
assistant  bishop  for  the  state  of  New- York;  and  the  Rev. 
Alexander  Viets  Griswold,  chosen  bishop  for  the  four 
states  of  Massachusetts,  New-Hamj^shire,  Vermont,  and 
Rhode-Island.  The  expectation  was  disappointed,  by  the 
want  of  the  canonical  number  on  the  spot.  But  the  testi- 
monials of  the  bishops  elect  were  signed  ;  and  the  two 
bishops  present  repaired  with  them  to  the  city  of  New- 
York;  where,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop 
Provoost,  whose  indisjjosition,  although,  with  difficulty, 
permitted  his  attendance  in  the  jjlace  of  his  residence,  and 
with  the  assistance  of  Bishop  Jarvis,  the  consecration  was 
performed,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  on  the  29th  of  May,  in 
Trinity  Church,  in  the  said  city. 

It  was  referred  to  the  presiding  bishop,  "  to  address  a  let- 
ter, in  behalf  of  this  convention,  to  the  venerable  Society  in 
England  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  in- 
forming them  that  the  Church  in  the  state  of  Vermont  is  duly 
organized,  and   in   union  with   the  Protestant    Episcopal 


36 

Church  in  the  United  States,  beiri<^-  placed  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  hiHliop  of  rSiew-Hanipshire,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode-Island,  and  Vermont ;  that  a  board  of  trustees  of  do- 
nations to  the  Church  has  been  incorporated  in  the  state  of 
Massachusetts;  and  that,  in  the  opinion  of  this  convention, 
the  society  may  safely  confide  the  care  of  their  lands  in  Ver- 
mont to  such  attorney  or  attornies  as  may  be  recommended 
by  the  said  board  of  trustees,  and  approved  of  by  the  ec- 
clesiastical convention  of  Vermont." 

When  the  convention  arose,  it  was  agreed  to  hold  the 
next  Triennial  Convention  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.     Q. 

The  next  Triennial  Convention  was  held,  agreeably  to 
appointment  of  that  of  1811,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
from  Tuesday,  the  17th  of  May,  to  Tuesday,  the  24th  of 
the  same  month,  in  the  year  1814.  The  bishops  present 
at  it  were,  l^ishop  White,  of  the  Church  in  Pennsylvania; 
Bishop  Hobart,  the  assistant  bishop  of  the  Church  in  INevv- 
York;  Bishop  Griswold,  of  the  Eastern  Diocese;  Bishop 
Dehon,  of  South-Carolina;*  and,  the  second  day  of  the 
session,  Bishop  Richard  C.  Moore,  of  Virginia. 

Ill  the  last  mentioned  state,  the  Church  liad  been  for 
many  years,  more  and  more  under  a  decline.  On  the 
decease  of  Bishop  Madison,  there  had  ensued  a  difficulty 
in  the  choice  of  a  successor,  until  a  few  gentlemen,  some 
of  the  clerical  and  some  of  the  lay  order,  suggested  the 
choice  of  the  gentlemen  mentioned  above,  who  had  ac- 
<piired  considerable  popularity  in  the  city  of  IN ew- York  ; 
wherein  there  was  a  large  congregation  under  his  ministry. 
The  defect  of  Episcopal  maintenance  was  expected  to  be 
surmounted,  by  connecting  the  oilice  of  bishoj)  with  that  of 
the  rectory  of  a  church  recently  erected  in  the  city  of 
Richmond,  on  the  site  of  a  tiicatre,  destroyed  a  few  years 
before  by  a  fire,  wherein  a  considerable  [)roportion  of  the 
inhabitants  had  been  consumed.  The  rec|uisite  testimonials 
having  been  furnished.  Dr.  Moore  was  consecrated  in  St. 
James'  Church,  Philadelphia,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  as- 
sisted by  Bishops  Hobart,  (iriswold,  and  Dehon.  The 
sermon  preached  at  the  opening  of  the  convention,  serving 
for  the  consecration  also,  was  by  Bishop  Hobart,  of  New- 
York.  He  sui)plicd  the  place  of  Bishop  Claggett,  of  Mary- 
land, who  was  kept  away  by  indisposition. 


•  Bifhop  Drhon  had  hoen  cotisocraled.  Octobrr  ir)lh.  18)2.  in  Christ  Church, 
m  thp  rity  of  Philadelphia,  h>'  the  prt'siding  bulicji,  aisisled  hy  Bishops  Juivn 
and  Hohan'. 


37 

There  were  three  canons  parsed  at  this  convention. 
One  of  them  was  concerning  the  ahns  and  contributions  at 
the  holy  communion.  They  are  subjected  to  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  minister,  or  such  person  as  they  may  be  com- 
mitted to  by  him.  The  provision  was  designed  to  hmit 
munificence  of  this  description  to  poor  communicants,  and 
to  sustain  a  pastoral  intercourse  with  them.  The  cause  of 
interposition  in  this  matter,  was  some  proposals  of  appro- 
j)riation  said  to  have  been  made,  for  Church  purposes  in- 
deed, but  wide  of  the  original  design  of  the  oblations  at  the 
Lord's  table. 

The  next  canon  was  explanatory  of  the  twenty-ninth, 
guarding  against  the  effect  of  its  excluding  from  diocesan 
conventions  and  votes  in  the  choice  of  bishops,  of  unin- 
stituted  ministers  and  deacons,  where  these  are  not  ex- 
cluded by  the  respective  diocesan  constitutions  ;  and  further, 
against  the  extending  of  the  Office  of  Institution  to  gather- 
ings of  persons  not  bound  together  by  a  common  interest 
in  a  place  of  worship. 

The  remaining  canon  was  a  repeal  of  so  much  of  the 
forty-fifth,  as  requires  the  reading,  in  the  General  Conven- 
tion, of  the  parochial  reports  entered  on  the  journals  of  the 
different  state  conventions.  The  design  of  this,  was  to 
devolve  on  the  Church  in  each  state,  the  preparing  of  a 
report  of  its  concerns.  Accordingly,  this  was  provided  for 
by  a  separate  resolve. 

There  was  also  entered  on  the  journal  an  explanation  of 
the  nineteenth  canon,  which  regulates  the  dress  of  candi- 
dates for  orders,  and  other  particulars  relative  to  them. 
The  explanation  goes  to  the  point,  that  such  provisions  are 
merely  a  giuird  against  popular  mistakes. 

At  the  instance  of  the  clerical  members  from  the  diocese 
of  Connecticut,  who  acted  under  instructions  from  the  con- 
vention of  that  state,  the  bishops  gave  their  sense  of  some 
matters  in  the  ninth  canon,  and  in  the  fortieth.  Their 
sense,  which  was  sanctioned  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  is  as  follows: — 

The  ninth  canon  having  provided,  that  some  literary 
♦|ualifications,  therein  specified,  may  be  dispensed  with,  in 
consideration  of  certain  other  qualifications  of  the  candidate 
for  the  ministry,  the  bishops  define  the  latter  to  be,  a  con- 
siderable extent  of  theological  learning,  a  peculiar  aptitude 
to  teach,  and  a  large  share  of  jirudcnce.  The  fortieth  canon 
having  referred  to  persons,  who  join  a  congregation  of  this 
Ohurch    from   some  other    religious   society,  the   bishops 


33 

rested  the  evidence  of  tlic  membership  of  such  a  congrega- 
tion on  the  two  circumstances,  of  their  being  baptized  per- 
sons, and  of  tiieir  possessing  an  interest  in  its  concerns,  by 
express  or  implied  permission.  But  there  is  a  caution 
against  its  being  supposed,  that  a  more  definite  mode  for 
the  same  object  may  not  hereafter  be  profitably  adopted. 

It  was  thought  proper,  in  this  convention,  to  issue  a  de- 
claration, that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Cliurch  in  the 
United  States,  is  the  Church  formerly  known  among  us 
under  the  name  of  "  the  Church  of  England  in  America." 
Accordingly,  an  instrument  to  tiiis  effect  was  drawn  up  by 
the  bishops,  and  received  the  approbation  of  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 

At  the  suggestion  of  the  bishops,  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies  joined  them  in  an  instrument,  designed 
for  the  introduction  of  the  posture  of  standing  during  the 
singing  of  any  portion  of  the  psalms  or  hymns  in  metre. 
Tins  comely  practice  had  recently  been  introduced  in  some 
of  the  congregations  of  this  Church,  in  all  of  which,  it  was 
heretofore  the  custom  to  sit  during  that  act  of  devotion. 

In  consideration  of  the  scarcity  of  the  Homilies  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  of  their  being  recognised  by  the 
articles  of  this  Church,  although  with  due  regard  to  the 
diversity  of  local  circumstances,  the  two  houses  made  a 
provision,  which  has  occasioned  an  edition  of  them  in  this 
country.*  In  the  event  of  a  failure  of  this,  they  were  to  be 
provided  for  the  use  of  candidates  for  the  ministry,  by  the 
bishops,  or  other  ecclesiastical  authorities  in  the  respective 

states. 

On  the  journal  of  the  last  Triennial  Convention,  the 
providing  for  an  Episcopacy  in  the  western  states  was  held 
out  as  a  desirable  object.  Intermediate  circumstances 
having  prevented  the  acting  on  this  business,  it  was  again 
held  out  as  a  matter  to  be  kept  in  view. 

On  the  same  journal  there  was  recorded  a  measure, 
designed  to  obtain  from  the  Society  (in  England)  for  Pro- 
pagating the  Gospel,  a  legal  title  to  lands  in  Vermont, 
originally  appropriated  for  the  Episcopal  Church  in  those 
states,  but  vested  in  that  society  in  trust.  All  proceeding 
in  this  business  was  suspended,  at  first  by  the  circumstance 
that  the  necessary  documents  were  not  in  preparation ;  and 
since,  by  the  occurrence  of  the  war. 


*  Published  in  IBirj  by  T.  &  J.  Swords,  nnd  may  now  be  had  at  the  store  of 
SwordB,  Stanford,  &.  Co.  New-York.        Publishers. 


39 

In  consequence  of  a  communication  to  the  bishops,  pro- 
posing to  them,  what  was  considered  as  a  profitable  im- 
provement in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  they  proposed 
to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  a  declaration, 
that  it  was  not  intended  to  bring  the  book  under  review 
during  this  convention.  And  in  consequence  of  a  commu- 
nication, proposing  to  the  bishops  to  give  their  sanction  to 
a  wark  on  a  subject  of  great  importance  in  religion,  they 
made  it  a  rule  of  their  house,  that  in  future,  no  application 
of  this  sort  shall  be  considered  as  regularly  before  them : 
and  they  proposed  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties, a  declaration  to  the  same  eifect.  The  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  signified  theip  concurrence  in 
the  proposals,  with  their  thanks,  for  what  they  called  "the 
judicious  course  adopted  in  reference  to  these  subjects." 

A  question  was  moved  in  each  of  the  houses,  as  to  the 
propriety  of  establishing  a  theological  school,  to  be  exclu- 
sively under  the  patronage  of  the  General  Convcntion- 
The  subject  was  referred  to  a  future  meeting  of  the  body ; 
and,  in  the  mean  time,  measures  were  to  be  taken  to 
ascertain  tho  general  wish  on  the  subject  in  each  of  the 
states. 

A  proposal  was  also  made,  to  grant  an  exclusive  copy- 
right of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  for  a  valuajt>le  con- 
sideration. This  also  was  delayed,  under  the  same  pro- 
vision, for  the  ascertaining  of  the  general  sense  of  the 
Church ;  and,  with  it,  advice  in  law. 

As  at  each  of  the  last  two  conventions,  a  pastoral  letter 
was  drawn  up  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  read  in  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 

The  convention  appointed  their  next  triennial  meeting 
to  be  in  the  city  of  New- York.     R. 

Agreeably  to  appointment  at  the  last  General  Conven- 
tion, there  assembled  another  in  the  city  of  New- York,  on 
the  20th  of  May,  1817.  There  were  present  all  the  bishops : 
the  house  then  consisting  of  Bishops  White,  Hobart,  Gris- 
wold,  Dehon,  Moore,  Kemp,  and  Croes.  The  occasion 
was  opened  by  a  discourse  from  Bishop  Griswold.* 

In  consequence  of  an  application  from  the  Church  in 


*  During  the  recess  of  the  convention,  Dr.  Kenip  h;id  been  consecrated  on  the 
first  day  of  September,  1814,  in  Christ  Church,  in  the  city  of  Brunswick,  New- 
Jersey,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  assisted  by  Bisliops  Ilobart  and  Moore.  And 
Dr.  Croes  had  been  consecrated  on  the  19th  day  of  November,  1815,  in  St, 
Peter's  Church,  in  the  city  of  Pliiladelphia,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  sssiatedby 
Bishops  Hobart  and  Keuip. 


40 

North-Carolina,  in  which  a  convention  had  been  held,  the 
said  (/hiirch  was  considered  as  having  acceded  to  the 
occleslaslical  constitution.  From  the  time  of  the  revohi- 
tionary  war,  there  had  been  but  temporary  siipphes  of  the 
ministry  in  a  few  places ;  but  eome  clergymen,  recently 
settled  in  the  state,  in  connexion  with  some  influential  lay 
gentlemen,  had  taken  active  measures  for  the  revival  oh' 
our  communion. 

The  presiding  bishop  made  report  of  sundry  rtiotters 
committed  to  him  by  the  last  convention.  They  were  the 
certifying  to  the  venerable  Society  (in  England)  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  of  certain  facts  in  favour  of  tlift 
Church  in  Vermont,  relatively  to  lands  of  which  the  title* 
were  vested  in  the  society — the  taking  of  measures  rela- 
tively to  the  organizing  of  the  Church  beyond  the  Alleg- 
hany mountains,  and  the  republishing  of  the  journals  of 
this  Church  from  the  beginning.  The  first  and  the  las! 
liad  been  carried  into  elfect,  and  the  other  had  been 
attended  to,  as  far  as  circumstances  would  permit.  The 
thanks  of  the  house  were  voted  to  the  presiding  bishop. 

Relatively  to  the  last  mentioned  subject,  the  House  of 
Bishops  saw  cause  to  record  their  opinion  as  follows  : — 

"  Resolved,  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  Episcopal 
congregations  in  the  states  referred  to  in  the  above  com- 
munications, where  conventions  are  not  already  organized, 
to  organize  conventions,  which  may  be  received  into  union 
with  this  convention,  and,  when  expedient,  may  unite, 
according  to  the  canons,  in  the  choice  of  a  bishop,  having 
jurisdiction  over  those  states;  and  that  this  convention 
liave  received,  with  much  satisfaction,  information  of  the 
measures  which  have  been  already  adopted  in  the  state  of 
Ohio,  for  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  that  state. 

"  Resolved,  That  though  the  measure  of  a  convention 
comprising  sundry  states  in  the  western  country,  may  be  a 
measure  of  temporary  expediency,  it  cannot  be  authorized 
by  this  convention  consistently  with  the  general  constitution 
of  the  Church,  which  recognises  only  a  convention  of  tiie 
Church  in  each  state. 

"  Resolved,  That  it  be  earnestly  recommended  to  the  au- 
thorities of  this  Church,  in  each  state  respectively,  to  adopt 
measures  for  sending  missionaries  to  our  destitute  brethren 
in  the  western  states :  such  missionaries  to  be  subject  to 
the  direction  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  state  of 
states  in  which  they  may  olliciate. 

•'  Resolved,  That  the  presiding  bishop  be  requested  to 


4t 

transmit  the  foregoing  resolutions  to  such  person  or  persons 
as  he  may  judge  proper." 

This  resolve  was  carried  into  effect,  partly  by  a  canon 
made  during  the  session,  and  partly  by  a  forwarding  of  the 
contemplated  communications. 

The  several  bishops  made  reports  on  the  sense  of  the 
Church  in  their  respective  diocesses,  on  the  subject  of  a 
theological  school.  There  was  diversity  of  opinion,  but  the 
general  sense,  in  both  houses,  was  in  favour  of  a  general 
school ;  which,  on  the  proposal  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and 
with  the  consent  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
was  determined  to  be  instituted  in  New-York.  For  the 
carrying  of  the  design  into  effect,  there  was  chosen  a  com- 
mittee, consisting  of  members  of  both  houses.  On  the  part 
of  the  House  of  Bishops,  there  were  chosen  Bishops  White, 
Hobart,  and  Croes  ;  and  on  the  part  of  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  Drs.  Wharton,  Harris,  and 
How,  Hon.  Rufus  King,  Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  Esq.  and 
William  Meredith,  Esq. 

The  House  of  Bishops  thought  it  expedient  to  make  a 
solemn  call  on  the  attention  of  the  clergy  in  relation  to  the 
twenty-second  canon,  which  enjoins  on  them  diligence  in 
catechetical  instruction  and  lectures.  The  bishops  consider 
these  as  among  the  most  important  duties  of  clergymen, 
and  among  the  most  effectual  means  of  promoting  religious 
knowledge  and  practical  piety. 

It  being  represented  to  the  House  of  Bishops  by  Bishop 
Hobart,  that  the  congregation  du  St.  Esprit,  in  the  city 
of  New- York,  having  joined  the  communion  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  with  their  minister,  who  had  lately  received  Epis- 
copal ordination,  which  congregation  consisted  originally 
of  Protestant  emigrants  from  France ;  and  there  being 
many  to  whom  the  French  language  is  still  more  familiar 
than  the  English,  it  is  expedient  that  they  be  furnished 
with  the  liturgy  in  the  former  language  ;  and  that  there  is 
such  a  liturgy,  not  sanctioned  by  this  convention,  it  was 
recommended  to  the  said  bishop  to  cause  the  said  French 
liturgy  to  be  examined,  in  order  to  ascertain  how  far  the 
translation  is  correct,  and  to  confirm  the  use  thereof,  with 
such  amendments  and  improvements  as  the  case  may  call 
for  ;  and  to  declare  it  to  be  the  liturgy  which  may  be  used 
by  any  minister  of  this  Church  who  may  officiate  in  a  con- 
gregation to  whom  the  French  language  is  familiar. 

The  bishops  issued  the  following  call  on  the  members 
of  this  Church,  and  sent  it  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and 

6 


42 

Lay  Deputies,  to  be  there  read :  which  was  accordingly 
done. 

"  The  House  of  Bishops,  solicitous  for  the  preservation 
of  the  purity  of  the  Church,  and  the  piety  of  its  members, 
are  induced  to  impress  upon  the  clergy  the  important  duty, 
with  a  discreet  bnt  earnest  zeal,  of  warning  the  people  of 
their  respective  cures,  of  the  danger  of  an  indulgence  in 
those  worldly  pleasures  which  may  tend  to  withdraw  the 
affections  from  spiritual  things.  And  especially  on  the  subject 
of  gaming,  of  amusements  involving  cruelty  to  the  brute 
creation,  and  of  theatrical  representations,  to  which  some 
peculiar  circumstances  have  called  their  attention, — they 
do  not  hesitate  to  express  their  unanimous  opinion,  that 
these  amusements,  as  well  from  their  licentious  tendency, 
as  from  the  strong  temptations  to  vice  which  they  afford, 
ought  not  to  be  frequented.  And  the  bishops  cannot  refrain 
from  expressing  their  deep  regret  at  the  information,  that 
in  some  of  our  large  cities,  so  little  respect  is  paid  to  the 
feelings  of  the  members  of  the  Church,  that  theatrical  re- 
presentations are  fixed  for  the  evenings  of  her  most  solemn 
festivals." 

On  the  question  referred  by  the  last  convention,  to  be 
reported  on  in  this,  relatively  to  the  copy-right  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  the  measure  was  considered  as  disap- 
proved of,  so  far  as  opinion  could  be  ascertained. 

A  proposed  change  in  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  was 
referred  to  the  several  state  conventions.  It  was  to  change 
the  time  of  the  triennial  meeting  to  the  first  Tuesday  in 
October. 

The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  proposed  to  the 
House  of  Bishops,  the  designating  of  a  standard  copy  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  It  was  too  late  to  enter  on  the 
business,  and  "  the  House  of  Bishops  deeming  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  request  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties, on  the  subject  of  an  authentic  edition  of  the  Holy 
Bible,  a  matter  requiring  very  serious  attention  and  deli- 
beration, resolve,  that  its  members  will  give  such  attention 
and  deliberation  to  the  subject,  previously  to  the  next 
meeting  of  the  General  Convention,  and  report  at  the  said 
meeting. 

The  table  of  degrees  of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  pro- 
hibitory of  marriage,  was  again  referred,  and  a  committee 
was  appointed  on  the  subject,  consisting  of  Bishops  White, 
Kemp,  and  Croes. 

There  passed  three  canons.     The  first  was  the  limiting 


43 

of  the  operation  of  the  second  and  thirty-seventh  canons, 
so  far  as  regarded  the  states  westward  of  the  mountains. 
The  professed  reason  was,  the  providing  of  tljat  country 
with  a  bishop,  if  a  suitable  person  should  be  presented, 
whatever  might  be  the  number  of  resident  presbyters,  and 
even  if  there  be  none.  There  was  the  further  reason,  that 
if  it  should  be  thought  convenient  to  unite  with  a  western 
diocese  the  western  counties  of  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia; 
and  if  there  should  be  the  consent  of  the  Church  in  each  of 
the  said  states,  there  might  be  a  temporary  provision  for 
the  purpose,  consistent  with  the  integrity  of  the  Church  in 
each  state. 

The  second  canon  makes  a  clergyman's  renunciation  of 
the  ministry  a  cause  of  admonition,  or  of  suspension,  or  of 
degradation. 

The  third  canon  provided,  that  in  the  case  of  expulsion 
from  the  communion,  and  information  given  to  the  bishop 
as  required  by  the  second  rubric  before  the  communion 
service ;  if  the  expelled  party  make  no  complaint,  there 
shall  be  no  inquiry  instituted.  The  bishop,  on  receiving 
complaint,  is  to  institute  an  inquiry,  and  the  notice  given 
by  the  minister  is  a  sufficient  presentation. 

A  pastoral  letter  was  again  drawn  up  by  the  House  of 
Bishops,  and  read  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties. 

When  the  convention  adjourned,  Philadelphia  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  the  place  of  the  next  meeting.     S. 

[TAe  narrative  of  the  first  edition  here  concluded.'] 

Agreeably  to  appointment,  the  General  Convention  as- 
sembled in  St.  James's  Church,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
on  Tuesday,  the  16th  of  May,  1820,  and  continued  in  ses- 
sion until  Wednesday,  the  24th  of  the  same  month.  The 
bishops  present,  were  Bishops  White,  Hobart,  Griswold, 
Moore,  Kemp,  Croes,  Bowen,  and  Brownell ;  being  the 
whole  of  the  Episcopal  body,  with  the  exception  of  Bishop 
Chase.  Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops, 
and  Dr.  William  Wilmer  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies.  The  Bev.  William  Augustus  Muhlenburg  was 
secretary  of  the  former  house,  and  the  Rev.  Ashbel  Bald- 
win, with  the  Rev.  John  C.  Rudd,  were  secretary  and  assist- 
ant secretary  of  the  latter.  On  Wednesday,  the  25th,  the 
houses  having  been  organized  on  the  preceding  day,  the 
convention  was  opened  with  a  sermon  from  Bishop  Moore. 


44 

The  territory  formerly  known  by  the  name  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Maine,  having  been  received  by  Congress  as  an 
independent  state,  and  the  Church  therein  having  become 
organized,  it  was  admitted  as  a  member  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical union. 

That  part  of  the  forty-fifth  canon  which  requires  the 
reading  of  episcopal  addresses  from  the  journal  of  the 
state  conventions,  being  thought  to  occasion  an  unnecessary 
spending  of  time,  was  repealed  by  the  first  canon  of  this 
convention. 

The  first  canon  of  1816  having  been  accommodated  to 
the  existing  circumstances  of  the  Church  in  the  state  of 
Ohio,  and  the  object  of  it  having  been  accomphshed,  it 
was  repealed  by  the  second  canon  of  those  now  passed. 

By  the  third,  the  pastoral  letters,  to  be  issued  hereafter 
at  the  times  of  the  Triennial  Conventions,  are  required  to 
be  read  by  the  clergy  in  their  respective  congregations. 

By  the  fourth,  an  improvement  was  made  in  the  seven- 
teenth canon  of  1808,  in  reference  to  testimonials  to  be 
accommodated  to  the  respective  cases. 

By  the  fifth,  the  same  canon  of  1808  was  so  far  altered, 
as  to  require  from  a  candidate  for  the  ministry,  not  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  having  officiated  as  a 
minister  of  another  denomination,  that  he  produce  evidence 
of  his  residence  for  one  year. 

The  sixth  concerned  the  consecration  of  bishops.  The 
testimonials  of  the  bishop  elect,  instead  of  being  presented 
to  any  three  bishops,  are  to  be  presented  to  the  presiding 
bishop,  who  is  to  communicate  them  to  the  other  bishops. 
In  the  event  of  the  consent  of  the  major  number  of  them, 
the  presiding  bishop,  or  any  three  to  whom  he  may  com- 
municate the  testimonials  and  the  consent  of  the  major 
number,  may  proceed  to  the  consecration.  But  if  a  bishop 
have  been  elected  within  one  year  of  a  General  Convention, 
his  consecration  is  to  be  deferred  to  the  time  of  their 
assembling. 

It  was  thought  conducive  to  the  exercise  of  discipline, 
to  moderate  the  publicity  of  ecclesiastical  censures  on  any 
offending  minister,  in  the  event  of  his  voluntary  renunciation 
of  the  ministry :  which  is  the  purport  of  the  seventh  canon. 
The  eighth  provides,  that  in  the  case  of  a  candidate  for 
orders,  his  sufficiency  in  the  acquirements  exacted  for  the 
first  exavnination,  prescribed  by  the  tenth  canon  of  1808, 
(shall  be  ascertained  before  his  admission  as  a  candidate ; 
and  fmther,  that  the  said  acquirements  shall  not  be  dis- 


45 

pensed  with,  unless  there  be  a  testimonial  from  at  least  five 
presbyters,  "  stating,  that,  in  their  opinion,  he  possesses 
extraordinary  strength  of  natural  understanding,  a  pecuhar 
a};titude  to  teach,  and  a  large  share  of  prudence." 

On  an  application  for  the  sanctioning  of  a  selection  of 
Psalms  and  Hymns,  made  from  the  authorized  Book  of 
Psalms  and  Hymns  in  metre,  there  was  a  refusal,  on  the 
ground  of  the  resolution  of  the  two  houses  in  the  convention 
of  1814,  against  the  giving  of  a  conventional  sanction  to  any 
publication  not  issued  as  of  authority  in  this  Church. 

The  convention  thought  it  a  matter  of  sufficient  import- 
ance, to  give  instruction  concerning  the  title  page  of  future 
editions  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  for  the  securing 
of  accuracy;  and  further,  for  the  observing  of  the  due  dis° 
tinction  between  the  said  book,  and  other  books  and  docu- 
ments not  the  same,  although  of  equal  authority  in  this 
Church. 

The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  requested  the 
House  of  Bishops,  who  referred  it  to  the  presiding  bishop, 
with  such  aid  as  he  may  think  proper  to  employ,  to  take 
measures  for  making  known  any  errors  or  omissions  in  the 
edition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  printed  in  New- 
York,  by  Hugh  Gaine,  in  the  year  1793,  and  established 
by  the  forty-third  canon  of  1808,  as  the  standard  book,  so 
that  they  may  be  avoided  or  supplied  in  future  editions. 

There  was  a  similar  request  and  a  similar  reference  to 
the  presiding  bishop,  to  correct  or  supply  any  errors  or 
omissions  in  the  calendar  and  tables  prefixed  to  the  said 
book,  and  to  extend  the  table  of  the  days  on  which  Easter 
will  fall  for  two  cycles  of  the  moon,  from  the  year  1823. 
[By  an  evident  typographical  error,  it  is  1813  on  the 
Journal.] 

The  two  houses  appointed  a  joint  committee,  to  make  a 
collection  of  the  journals  of  the  General  Conventions,  and 
of  the  several  Diocesan  Conventions,  and  of  other  important 
documents,  connected  with  the  history  of  the  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  to  deposit  the  same,  subject  to  the  dis- 
posal of  the  General  Convention,  in  such  hands  as  may  be 
deemed  proper  for  the  present,  and  until  a  further  order  of 
the  convention.  The  difficulty  of  procuring  sets  of  the 
journals  of  the  preceding  years,  was  strong  proof  of  there 
being  a  use  in  the  present  measure. 

There  was  also  a  committee  appointed  by  the  two  houses, 
to  take  such  measures  in  the  recess  of  the  convention,  as 
they  might  find  suitable  "  for  the  cstabUshmcnt  of  a  stand- 


46 

ard,  according  to  which  all  copies  of  the  scriptures,  to  be 
recommended  to  the  use  of  the  members  of  this  Church, 
shall  be  printed."  This  matter,  at  the  rising  of  the  General 
Convention  of  1817,  had  been  submitted  by  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  to  the  consideration  of  the 
bishops  during  the  recess.  The  bishops,  in  the  convention 
of  1820,  noticing  the  cause  of  the  reference  in  a  corruption 
of  a  particular  text  in  a  late  edition,  tending  to  sustain  a 
species  of  ordination  unknown  in  scripture,  had  reported 
to  the  following  effect.  They  were  of  opinion,  that  in  con- 
sequence of  the  exclusive  privilege  enjoyed  in  England  for 
the  printing  of  the  Bible,  and  the  heavy  fines  which  may  be 
inflicted  on  the  patentees  for  a  falsifying  of  the  text,  the 
Enghsh  editions  may  in  general  be  depended  on ;  there 
having  been  noticed  but  few  inaccuracies  in  any  of  them, 
and  those  being  unimportant.  An  edition  by  Eyre  and 
Strahan,  in  1806,  and  another^by  them  in  1812,  had  been 
spoken  of  as  the  most  perfect  extant,  but  the  bishops  had 
not  been  able  to  procure  a  copy.  They  gave  a  caution 
against  certain  fraudulent  copies  of  the  Bible  imported  from 
England,  printed  by  unauthorized  individuals,  who  avoided 
the  law  by  a  few  notes  in  the  lower  margin,  which  may  be 
cut  from  the  text,  but  favours  the  pretence  of  the  editing 
of  a  commentary.  Such  copies  had  been  found  exceedingly 
corrupt. 

In  regard  to  editions  issued  in  the  United  States,  the 
bishops  had  found  them  generally  as  correct  as  could  have 
been  reasonably  expected,  considering  the  difficulty  of  avoid- 
ing typographical  errors. 

Further,  they  were  aware,  that  their  report  did  not  go  to 
the  desirable  extent ;  and  it  was  this  consideration  wiiicli 
led  to  the  appointment  of  the  joint  committee. 

There  came  before  the  two  houses,  the  proposal  of  tiie 
last  General  Convention  for  the  changing  of  the  time  of  the 
meeting  from  May  to  October.  The  House  of  Bishops 
proposed  the  ratifying  of  it,  but  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies  now  convened,  signified  their  non-concur- 
rence. Then  there  came  from  the  latter  house  such  an 
alteration  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution,  as  subjects 
to  the  discretion  of  every  Triennial  Convention,  the  time  as 
well  as  the  place  of  the  assembling  of  the  next,  with  autho- 
rity in  the  presiding  bishop,  in  the  case  of  the  occurrence  of 
epidemical  disease,  to  make  a  change  of  place.  In  this  the 
House  of  Bishops  concurred,  and  it  will  rest  with  the  next 
convention  to  decide. 


47 

The  principal  subject  of  discussion  related  to  tlie  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  the  location  of  which  became  transferred 
by  tiiis  convention  from  New-York  to  New-llaven,  iu 
Connecticut,  adopting  sundry  measures  for  the  furtherance 
of  the  design.  When  the  bishops  concurred  in  the  pro- 
posal, they  unanimously  declared,  that  they  did  not  "mean 
by  this  concurrence  to  interfere  with  any  plan  now  con- 
templated, or  that  may  hereafter  be  contemplated  in  any 
diocese  or  diocesses,  for  the  establishment  of  theological 
institutions  or  professorships;  and  further,  they  esteem  it 
their  duty  to  express  the  opinion,  that  the  various  sums 
subscribed,  having  been  thus  subscribed  nnder  an  act  of  the 
convention  establishing  the  seminary  in  New- York,  the  sub- 
scribers who  have  not  paid  are  not  now  bound,  except  they 
think  proper,  to  pay  their  subscriptions  ;  the  institution 
being  removed  to  a  different  city."  This  declaration  was 
received,  and  read,  and  not  objected  to,  in  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 

There  was  proposed  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies,  and  concurred  in  by  the  bishops,  a  constitution  of 
a  missionary  society,  for  foreign  and  domestic  missions, 
which  became  inefficient  from  an  irregularity  in  the  choice 
of  the  trustees.  The  society  was  located  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  and  the  members  there  resident,  after  fre- 
quent consultations,  did  not  think  themselves  authorized  to 
proceed.  The  error  resulted  from  the  press  of  business 
on  the  last  day  of  the  session. 

When  the  convention  adjourned,  it  was  with  the  deter- 
mination that  the  next  General  Convention  should  meet  in 
Philadelphia. 

The  whole  was  concluded  with  prayer  by  the  presiding- 
bishop.     T. 

The  next  General  Convention  being  special,  was  held  in 
1821,  in  St.  Peter's  Church,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
from  October  30th  to  November  the  3d,  inclusive.  The 
bishops  present,  were  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  pre- 
siding bishop  ;  Bishop  Hobart,  of  New- York;  Bishop  Gris- 
wold,  of  the  Eastern  Diocese;  Bishop  Kemp,  of  Maryland ; 
Bishop  Croes,  of  New-Jersey;  and  Bishop  Brownell,  of 
Connecticut,  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Wilmcr  presided,  the  Rev.  Ashbel 
Baldwin  was  secretary,  and  the  Rev.  John  C.  Rudd  was 
assistant  secretary.  The  Rev.  William  Augustus  Muhlen- 
burg  was  secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 

This  convention  assembled  on  the  call  of  the  presiding 


48 

bishop,  indiicetl  by  the  desire  of  the  major  number  of  the 
bishops ;  it  being  induced  by  the  desire  of  the  trustees  of 
the  Theological  Seminary,  to  consider  whether  any  or  what 
measures  should  be  adopted,  for  the  obtaining  of  a  legacy 
of  about  sixty  thousand  dollars,  bequeathed  by  Jacob  Sher- 
red,  of  the  city  of  New- York,  to  a  seminary  which  should 
be  instituted  within  the  state,  either  by  the  General  Con- 
vention or  by  that  of  the  diocese  in  which  the  testator  lived 
and  died.  It  became  a  question,  which  of  two  seminaries 
was  entitled  to  the  legacy.  On  the  one  hand,  the  general 
seminary  being  the  first  named,  was  thought  entitled  to  it, 
on  the  condition  of  removal  to  New- York:  and  several 
eminent  gentlemen  of  the  law  had  given  their  opinions  in 
the  affirmative.  On  the  other  hand,  legal  gentlemen  of 
equal  eminence  were  of  opinion,  that  as  the  diocesan  semi- 
nary was  in  a  capacity  to  go  into  immediate  operation,  it 
had  the  preferable  claim. 

The  convention  was  opened  by  a  sermon  from  Bishop 
Kemp.     U. 

The  two  houses  became  immediately  occupied  by  the 
business  for  which  they  had  been  called  together.  There 
was  appointed  a  joint  committee,  who,  after  contemplating 
the  subject  in  its  various  points  of  view;  and  after  discussing 
various  projects  for  the  combining  of  the  seminaries  now 
existing  in  New-Haven  and  New- York ;  all  in  the  spirit  of 
conciliation  and  mntual  concession ;  arrived  at  the  result, 
which  appears  in  the  organization  as  it  now  stands.  All 
the  members  of  the  committee  concurred  in  giving  praise 
to  Judge  Cameron,  of  North-Carolina,  for  the  ability  and 
good  temper  manifested  by  him  in  the  progress  of  the 
business:  and  the  same  were  again  displayed  by  him,  when 
it  came  before  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 

However,  it  did  not  pass  in  the  house  without  opposition ; 
which  was  almost  confined  to  the  clerical  and  lay  gentlemen 
from  Virginia;  with  whom  it  is  a  favourite  idea,  to  establish 
a  theological  professorship  in  the  college  of  William  and 
Mary,  in  Williamsburg. 

The  outlines  of  the  newly  organized  institution  are  as 
follow.  The  school  of  New-Haven,  and  that  of  New- York, 
are  to  be  combined,  and  to  be  seated  in  the  latter  state. 
All  the  bishops  are  to  be  trustees  officially.  The  other 
trustees  arc  to  be  chosen  in  the  several  states,  and  to  be 
residents  in  them  respectively.  In  each  state  there  is  to  be 
a  trustee  chosen  for  every  eight  of  its  clergy,  and  for  every 
two  thousand  dollars  contributed ;  except,  that  when  ten 


40 

thousand  dollars  shall  have  been  contfibutcd  in  any  state', 
ten  thousand  dollars  shall  be  required  for  every  additional 
trusteeship.  The  seminary  is  empowered  to  establish 
branches;  and  it  is  understood,  that  a  branch  school  is  to^ 
be  forthwith  established  at  Geneva,  in  New- York.     W. 

Another  business  of  similar  importance  was  brought 
before  the  two  houses-^that  of  a  missionary  society,  de- 
signed by  the  last  convention,  but  so  strangely  instituted, 
that  the  gentlemen  named  as  managers  fouml  themselves 
incompetent  to  the  purpose  of  the  appointment.  There' 
was  now  a  new  scheme  proposed  by  the  bishoj)s,  more  com- 
plete, and  in  every  respect  more  reasonable  than  the  former. 
The  scheme  had  the  concurrence  of  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies.     X. 

Tiie  House  of  Bishops  sent  to  the  other  house,  an  opinion 
explanatory  of  the  last  rubric  in  the  communion  service, 
which  had  been  interpreted  by  some  as  dispensing  with  the 
reading  of  the  ante-communion  service,  if  a  sermon  were 
to  follow.  This  was  not  ta  be  acted  on  by  the  house  to 
which  it  was  sent,  and  accordingly  they  only  noticed  the 
communication.     Y. 

The  presiding  bishop  laid  before  the  House  of  Bishops  a 
report  on  certain  subjects  committed  to  him  by  the  last  con- 
vention. They  were,  the  calculating  of  a  table  of  the  days 
on  which  Easter  will  fall  for  two  cycles  of  the  moon,  the 
making  of  necessary  alterations  in  the  calendar,  and  the 
ascertaining  of  errors  in  the  book  published  by  Hugh  Gaine, 
in  1793,  and  made  the  standard  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
It  was  proposed  in  the  report  to  appoint  a  joint  committee 
to  establish  another  standard  book  in  the  recess.  The  re- 
port was  sent  to  the  other  house,  and  required  nothing  on 
their  part  except  concurrence  in  appointing  a  joint  commit- 
tee, which  took  place.     Z. 

When  the  convention  adjourned,  it  was  after  prayers  by 
the  presiding  bishop,  and  a  short  address  by  him,  expres- 
sive of  the  feeling  which  possessed  him,  at  so  happy  a  con- 
clusion, and  so  different  from  what  had  been  apprehended. 
Then  followed  the  singing  of  the  133d  Psalm,  and  the 
Benediction. 

The  next  General  Convention  was  held  in  Philadelphia, 
from  the  23d  to  the  26th  day  of  May,  1823.  The  bishops 
present,  were  Bishop  White,  ot*  Pennsylvania ;  Bishop 
Griswold,  of  the  Eastern  Diocese;  Bishop  Moore,  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  Bishop  Kemp,  of  Maryland ;  Bishop  Croes,  of 
New-Jersey ;   Bishop  Bowcn,  of  South-Carolina ;   Bishop 

7 


50 

■Chase,  of  Ohio;  Bishop  Brownell,  of  Connecticut;  and, 
(after  liis  consecration)  Bishop  Ravenscroft,  of  North-Caro- 
lina. Of  the  two  absent,  Bishop  Hobart  was  detained  by 
sickness. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Wilham  Wihner,  of  Virginia,  was  chosen 
president  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  The 
Rev.  Ashbel  Baldwin  was  chosen  their  secretary,  and  the 
Rev.  John  C.  Riidd,  their  assistant  secretary.  The  Rev. 
William  H.  De  Lancey  was  chosen  secretary  of  the  House 
of  Bishops. 

The  Church  of  Georgia  was  received  into  the  union. 
The  Rev.  John  S.  Ravenscroft,  elected  bishop  of  the 
Church  in  North-Carolina,  being  duly  recommended  to  the 
bishops  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  was 
consecrated  in  St.  Paul's  Church,  and  took  his  seat  in  the 
House  of  Bishops. 

Sundry  communications  from  Bishop  Chase,  of  Ohio, 
were  received  through  the  presiding  bishop,  by  the  House 
of  Bishops,  and  it  was  referred  to  the  presiding  bishop  to 
answer  them.     AA. 

At  the  convention  of  1820,  a  committee  had  been  ap- 
pointed, consisting  of  the  presiding  bisliop,  the  Rev.  George 
Boyd,  and  the  Rev.  Jackson  Kemper,  to  make  a  collection 
of  journals  and  other  documents,  connected  with  the  history 
of  the  American  Church.  They  made  a  report,  which  was 
accepted.     BB. 

A  canon  was  passed,  regulating  the  admission  of  candi- 
dates for  holy  orders,  and  repealing  the  first  paragraph  of 
the  seventh  canon  of  1808.     CC. 

Another  canon  was  passed,  prescribing  the  mode  of  pub- 
lishing authorized  editions  of  the  standard  Bible  of  this 
Church. 

The  two  houses  concurred  in  approbation  of  a  report 
made  on  the  subject  of  the  Theological  Seminary. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Psalms  and  Hymns,  a  joint  com- 
mittee was  appointed,  consisting  of  the  presiding  Bishop, 
Bishop  Hobart,  and  Bishop  Croes,  the  Rev.  William  Meade, 
the  Rev.  Samuel  F.  Jarvis,  D.  D.  the  Rev.  William  A.  Muh- 
lenburg,  the  Rev.  Jackson  Kemper,  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Turner,  D.  D.  the  Rev.  Richard  S.  Mason,  the  Hon. 
Kensey  Johns,  the  Hon.  Robert  H.  Goldsborough,  John 
Read,  Esq.  Edward  J.  Stiles,  Esq.  Tench  Tilghman,  Esq. 
Francis  S.  Key,  Esq.  and  Peter  Kean,  Esq. 

A  report  was  made  by  a  committee  appointed  at  the  last 
General  Convention,  on  the  subject  of  a  standard  edition 


51 

of  the  Holy  Bible.  The  report  was  accepted ;  and  a  mode 
was  appointed  of  publishing  authorized  editions.  The  ap- 
proved edition  was  by  Eyre  and  Strahan  (London)  in  18UG 
and  1812. 

A  report  was  made  of  the  proceedings  of  the  executive 
committee  of  the  Missionary  Society.  During  the  session, 
there  was  a  meeting  held  of  the  society  in  St.  Paul's  Church. 
The  report  of  the  executive  committee  was  approved  of  by 
both  houses,  and  the  printing  of  it  was  ordered.     DD. 

A  message  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  concerning 
the  American  Colonization  Society.  The  bishops,  consider- 
ing it  rather  of  a  political  than  of  a  religious  nature,  declined 
the  proposal  of  sending  a  delegate  to  an  intended  meeting 
of  that  body,  but  expressed  approbation  of  their  object. 
The  resolve  of  the  bishops  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Cleri- 
cal and  Lay  Deputies,  and  was  there  read  and  returned. 
Nothing  further  was  done  in  the  business.     EE. 

A  joint  committee  was  appointed  to  report  on  the  circum- 
stances of  different  colleges  in  the  United  States,  in  refer- 
ence to  religious  instruction  given  in  them  respectively,  and 
on  the  practicability  of  establishing  a  seminary  or  seminaries 
for  the  education  of  youth,  under  the  influence  and  authority 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  committee  were 
the  presiding  Bishop,  Bishops  Bowen  and  Brownell,  Rev. 
Dr.  Wharton,  Rev.  Mr.  Baldwin,  Rev.  Mr.  Hooper,  Mr. 
Kean,  and  Mr.  AVilkins.     FF. 

The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  drew  up  a  re- 
port on  the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  several  diocesses,  and 
sent  it  to  the  House  of  Bishops.  That  house  returned  it 
with  their  triennial  pastoral  letter,  which  was  read. 

There  was  a  nomination  of  trustees  of  the  General 
Theological  Seminary,  and  a  recommendation  of  further 
efforts  for  the  increase  of  its  funds. 

During  the  session,  a  sermon  was  preached  before  the 
body  by  the  presiding  bishop,  in  St.  Peter's  Church,  and  a 
collection  was  made  for  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Mission- 
ary Society. 

A  plan  was  adopted  for  the  defraying  of  the  expenses  of 
every  General  Convention. 

The  next  meeting  was  appointed  to  be  in  the  city  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, on  the  first  Tuesday  in  November,  1826. 

As  usual,  the  session  was  concluded  with  devotional 
exercises  by  the  presiding  bishop. 

The  next  General  Convention  was  held  in  St.  Peter's 
Church,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  from  the  7th  to  the 


52 

15th  of  November,  in  the  year  182C.  All  the  bishops  were 
present,  except  Bishop  Moore,  of  Virginia  ;  who,  previously 
to  the  occasion,  with  the  intention  of  attendance,  had  pro- 
ceeded from  that  state  to  Hartford,  in  Connecticut ;  in 
which  town  he  continued  during  the  session,  under  the 
visitation  of  a  very  dangerous  disease. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Wilmer,  of  Virginia,  was  chosen  president 
of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  l^ay  Deputies,  and  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  of  New- York,  was  chosen 
secretary ;  who,  with  permission  of  the  house,  appointed 
the  Rev.  George  Weller,  of  Pennsylvania,  assistant  secre- 
tary. The  Rev.  William  H.  De  Lancey,  of  the  latter  state, 
was  chosen  secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 

The  convention  was  opened  by  divine  service,  by  a  ser- 
mon from  Bishop  Bowen,  of  South-Carolina,  and  by  the 
administration  of  the  holy  communion. 

There  was  submitted  to  the  two  houses  the  organization 
of  the  Church  in  the  state  of  Mississippi;  which,  being 
considered  constitutional,  the  said  Church  was  admitted 
into  union,  and  a  clerical  deputy  from  it  took  his  seat  in 
the  convention. 

The  most  interesting  business  brought  before  the  body, 
was  that  presented  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  bishops, 
to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  for  the  shorten- 
ing of  the  service  in  sundry  particulars.  This  immediately 
produced  a  great  excitement  in  the  minds  of  many  of  the 
members,  both  clerical  and  lay;  and  it  was  especially  a 
matter  of  surprise,  that  the  proposal  should  come  from  the 
bishops,  who  had  been  thought  by  many  too  strict,  and  by 
none  too  lax  in  the  requisition  of  conformity  to  the  entire 
service.     GG. 

It  would  not  appear  from  the  journal,  but  is  a  fact  which 
ought  to  be  recorded  in  this  place,  that  the  proposal  for 
abbreviation,  as  at  first  sent  by  the  bishops,  contained  the 
limiting  of  the  use  of  the  litany  to  seasons  and  days  especi- 
ally appointed  for  humiliation.  This  occasioned  so  great 
a  sensation  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
that  the  bishops  tacitly  withdrew  their  communication,  and 
then  presented  it  in  the  form  in  which  it  now  appears  on 
the  journal.     HH. 

So  far  as  regards  the  morning  and  the  evening  services, 
the  proposed  abbreviations  were  a  permission  to  exercise 
discretion  as  to  the  number  of  psalms,  and  to  the  portions 
of  lessons  ;  provided,  in  regard  to  each  lesson,  there  be  at 
Jeast  fifteen  vorscs.     License  was  also  given,  in  reference 


53 

to  the  calendar,  that  in  churches  in  which  there  is  the 
observance  of  what  are  called  the  prayer  days,  the  minister 
may  make  his  choice  of  a  chapter  intervening  between  one 
such  day  and  another.  The  notoriety  that  the  calendar 
was  constructed  with  a  view  to  a  daily  morning  and  evenino- 
service,  is  proof,  that  where  this  does  not  obtain,  but  there 
is  service  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  it  is  conducive  to 
edification  to  admit  the  proposed  latitude.     II. 

Besides,  the  alterations  in  the  morning  and  evening 
services,  there  were  proposed  two  in  the  Office  for  Confir"^ 
mation — both  of  tliem  permissive.  The  first  was  a  preface, 
confessed  by  all  to  be  more  suited  to  present  times  than 
that  now  in  the  book.  The  other  was  a  prayer,  substan- 
tially the  same  with  the  present,  which  was  to  remain,  and 
the  proposed  alternative  was  because  of  oftence  taken  in 
various  places,  at  the  following  words  in  it  liable  to  be 
misunderstood — "  and  hast  given  them  forgiveness  of  all 
their  sins."  For  the  preface  and  the  prayer,  see  the  Ap- 
pendix, No.  33.     KK. 

In  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  there  were 
not  a  few  of  the  objectors,  who  would  have  found  no  diffi- 
culty as  to  the  proposed  alterations  in  the  service,  had  they 
not  been  combined  with  a  rubric,  considered  as  requiring 
the  recital  of  the  ante-communion  service,  more  explicitly 
than  before.  There  was  an  endeavour  to  divide  the  two 
subjects ;  but  this  was  impossible,  as  they  constituted  but 
one  proposal  from  tlie  bishops.  In  consequence  of  the 
adoption  of  the  whole  instrument,  the  sense  of  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  is  now  declared  in  favour  of 
what  the  bishops  have  all  along  declared,  and  that  unani- 
mously, to  be  the  meaning  of  the  rubric,  pronounced  by 
so  many  to  be  dubious.     LL. 

After  much  discussion,  the  proposal  of  the  bishops,  com- 
prehending the  particulars  which  have  been  enumerated, 
was  adopted  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
so  far  as  is  permitted  by  the  constitution ;  that  is,  to  be 
referred  to  the  conventions  of  the  difllerent  states,  and  to 
be  acted  on  at  the  next  General  Convention.     MM. 

The  business  which  may  be  thought  the  next  in  import- 
ance, is  that  concerning  the  Psalms  in  metre  and  the 
Hymns.  On  the  first  of  these  subjects,  the  committee 
were  continued;  no  progress  being  made  in  it  at  this  time. 
The  other  was  brought  to  a  consummation,  the  number 
being  enlarged  to  two  hundred  and  thirteen.  There  had 
foeen  many  meetings  of  the  committee  on  that  work  j  and 


54 

great  pains  had  been  bestowed  on  it.  Considerable  expense 
having  been  incurred  by  various  impressions  from  the  press 
of  what  was  to  be  brought  under  consideration,  tiiere  was 
permission  given  to  a  committee,  with  a  view  to  retribution, 
to  dispose  of  a  copy-right  of  these  Hymns  for  one  year. 
NN. 

There  was  but  one  canon  passed.  It  altered  the  former 
canon,  requiring  one  year  for  the  admission  of  a  candidate 
to  holy  orders  ;  extending  the  term  to  three  years  ;  unless* 
in  the  diocese  to  which  he  belongs,  the  bishop,  with  the 
advice  and  the  consent  of  the  clerical  members  of  the 
standing  committee,  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  ordain  him 
after  the  expiration  of  a  shorter  term,  not  less  than  one 
year.  The  bishops  transmitted  two  other  canons  ;  bnt  they 
were  referred  to  a  committee  on  the  canons,  who  were  to 
be  in  existence  during  the  recess ;  in  order  to  make  an 
arrangement  of  the  whole  body  of  the  canons  ;  with  such 
improvements  as  they  may  devise ;  to  be  submitted  to  the 
next  convention.  One  of  these  canons  restricted  applica- 
tion for  orders,  to  the  bishop  in  whose  diocese  he  had  been 
admitted  a  candidate ;  unless,  in  pursuance  of  letters  di- 
missory  from  such  bishop.  The  other,  was  for  "  the  deter- 
mining of  the  rights  and  the  duties  of  the  presbyters  and 
deacons  of  this  Church,  in  respect  to  residence  and  account- 
ability."    OO. 

In  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  two  days 
were  spent  in  discussing  the  project  of  a  clerical  deputy 
from  South-Carolina,  for  the  forming  of  a  society,  the 
object  of  which  should  be,  the  printing  of  books  calculated 
to  promote  the  cause  of  religion,  and  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  particular.  The  society  was  to  be  entitled — 
"  for  the  Promoting  of  Christian  Knowledge."  The  oper- 
ation was  to  be  begun  with  seventy-two  thousand  dollars, 
to  be  raised  by  the  subscriptions  of  the  members ;  to  be 
repaid  to  them  in  books,  and  the  capital  to  be  finally  ex- 
tended to  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.  A  great  majority 
of  the  members  considered  the  scheme  as  not  coming  within 
the  sphere  of  congregational  business,  and  it  was  accord- 
ingly rejected :  but  of  these  ^here  was  a  i)roportion,  who 
were  otherwise  persuaded  of  its  utility.     PP. 

There  was  made  a  satisfactory  report  of  the  state  of  the 
Theological  Seminary.  It  was  drawn  at  considerable 
length,  by  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses.  In  the 
course  of  the  session,  there  was  a  settlement  of  the  propor- 
tions of  the  different  states  to  trusteeships. 


05 

There  was  also  a  rejDort,  considered  as  satisfactory,  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary 
Society. 

There  was  the  continuation  of  a  committee,  with  a  view 
to  the  future  estabhshment  of  a  college  for  general  science, 
under  the  authority  of  the  convention  ;  and  to  report  on  the 
interests  of  this  Church  in  seminaries  now  existing. 

A  committee  was  appointed,  for  the  ascertaining  of  any 
errors  which  there  may  be,  in  the  editions  of  the  Bible. 

There  was  drawn  up  and  adopted,  as  usual,  a  view  of 
the  state  of  the  Church,  by  a  committee  appointed  for  the 
purpose  ;  and  grounded  on  documents  from  the  conventions 
of  the  several  states. 

It  was  referred  to  the  Church  in  the  different  states,  to 
consider  of  and  to  adopt  an  amendment  to  the  second  clause 
of  the  eighth  article  of  the  constitution,  so  as  to  place  the 
thirty-nine  articles  of  religion  on  the  same  footing  with  the 
liturgy,  in  respect  to  any  alterations  which  may  be  pro- 
posed. 

A  pastoral  letter  to  the  members  of  the  Church  having 
been  submitted  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  approved  of 
by  them,  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties, and  there  read. 

In  consequence  of  a  report  from  a  joint  committee  of  the 
two  houses,  it  was  determined,  that  the  next  meeting  shall 
be  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  first  Wednesday  of 
August,  1829. 

The  session  was  closed  by  prayer  and  a  psalm,  with  a 
short  address  by  the  presiding  bishop. 

The  next  session  of  the  General  Convention  began  on 
Wednesday,  the  12th  of  August,  1829,  and  ended  on 
Thursday,  the  20th  day  of  the  same  month.  The  bishops 
present  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  were  Bishop  White, 
of  Pennsylvania ;  Bishop  Hobart,  of  New-York ;  Bishop 
Griswold,  of  the  Eastern  Diocese  ;  Bishop  Moore,  of  Vir- 
ginia; Bishop  Croes,  of  New- Jersey  ;  Bishop  Brownell,  of 
Connecticut ;  Bishop  Ravenscroft,  of  North-Carolina  ;  and 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  assistant  bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
had  been  elected  and  consecrated  during  the  recess. 

The  convention  was  opened  with  a  sermon  by  Bishop 
Brownell,  from  Galatians  iv.  18,  by  divine  service,  and  by 
the  administering  of  the  holy  communion. 

The  Rev.  William  E.  Wyatt,  D.  D.  of  Maryland,  was 
chosen  president;  and  the  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 
D.  D.  of  New-York,  secretary  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and 


56 

Lay  Deputic<:.     The  Rev.  Bird  Wilson,  D.  D.  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, was  chosen  secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 

The  Church  having  become  organized  in  the  state  of 
Kentucky,  it  was  admitted  into  the  union ;  as  was  also  the 
Church  in  the  state  of  Tennessee.  This  Church  had  been 
organized,  although  with  a  fault  in  one  of  its  canons,  which 
was  strongly  recommended  to  be  corrected.  From  infor- 
mation  received,  this  was  confidently  expected  to  be  the 
result.     QQ. 

There  was  the  adoption  of  the  alterations  proposed  by 
the  last  General  Convention,  requiring,  in  regard  to  any 
alterations  in  the  thirty-nine  articles,  that  they  shall  be 
presented  at  one  General  Convention,  with  the  view  of 
being  carried  into  efl'cct  by  the  next,  after  intermediate 
submission  to  the  churches  in  the  several  states  ;  in  liker 
manner  as  is  provided  for  in  regard  to  alterations  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer.  The  alterations  of  this  book, 
proposed  by  the  last  General  Convention,  were  not  acted 
on  by  the  present,  having  been  found  unacceptable  to  tho 
major  number  of  the  diocesan  conventions.     KR. 

What  principally  occupied  the  attention  of  this  conven- 
tion, was  the  presentation  of  the  Rev.  William  Meade, 
D.  D.  of  Virginia,  to  be  assistant  bishop  of  the  Church  in* 
that  state;  under  the  proviso,  that  the  election  did  not  confer 
on  him  the  right  of  succession  to  the  diocesan  Episcopacy. 
The  evils  residting  from  such  an  economy  were  so  manifest, 
that  there  was  unanimity  of  opinion  in  opposition  to  it  in 
both  houses:  even  the  deputies  from  the  diocese  in  question 
not  defending  it ;  and  expressing  their  confident  persuasion, 
that  tiie  ground  would  be  changed  at  the  next  meeting  of 
the  convention. 

The  only  difterence  of  opinion  in  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies,  during  a  discussion  of  several  diiys,  was 
on  the  point  pressed  by  many  of  the  members,  that  in  the 
presentation  for  consecration,  it  should  be  made  dependent 
on  the  condition  of  withdrawing  the  restriction  which  had 
occasioned  the  dissatisfaction.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was 
pleaded,  that  as  the  course  taken  in  Virginia,  however  ex- 
ceptionable, was  not  without  precedent ;  as  the  occurrence 
of  the  like  in  future  might  be  prevented  by  a  canon;  and 
as  the  deputies  from  the  state  concerned  had  come  under 
instructions  to  move  for  some  provision,  relatively  to  the 
relation  subsisting  between  a  diocesan  and  his  assistant ; 
by  which  they  seem  to  have  pledged  themselves  to  submit 
to  the  declared  sense  of  the  body  now  assembled  ;  it  would 


57 

be  a  reasonable  dictate  of  moderation,  to  carry  the  proposet! 
measure  into  effect.  During  some  days,  the  defeat  of  it 
seemed  almost  certain ;  but  towards  the  close  of  the  con- 
troversy, the  matter  took  a  different  turn  ;  and  the  measure 
of  presentation  was  carried,  but  not  witijout  the  dissent  of 
a  very  considerable  minority.  All  the  speakers  against  it 
were  careful  to  make  it  known,  that  they  had  no  grounds 
of  personal  dissatisfaction  with  Br.  Meade ;  for  whose 
character  they  professed  great  respect. 

When  the  presentation  came  to  the  House  of  Bishops, 
they  determined  on  the  consecration,  and  notified  it  to  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  At  the  same  time, 
they  declared  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  non-succession 
scheme  of  the  convention  of  Virginia  ;  resolving,  that  they 
never  would  hereafter  consecrate  an  assistant,  not  intended 
to  be  of  course  the  successor  ;  and  recommending  the  same 
forbearance  to  their  absent  and  to  any  future  brethren. 
They  also  prepared  a  canon  against  any  future  occurrence 
of  the  present  difficulty :  which  canon  was  sent  to  the  other 
house,  and  passed  by  them.     SS. 

On  the  next  day,  being  Wednesday,  October  19th,  tho 
Rev.  William  Meade,  D.  D.  was  consecrated  in  St.  James's 
Church,  by  the  presiding  bishop;  six  other  bishops,  to  wit, 
Bishops  Hobart,  Griswold,  Croes,  Moore,  Brownell,  and 
Ondcrdonk,  joining  in  the  imposition  of  hands.  The  ser- 
mon was  preached  by  tho  presiding  bishop,  from  Revela- 
tions ii.  10. 

At  this  convention,  seven  canons  were  passed. 

The  first  was  principally  designed  to  provide  for  tho 
reception  of  a  minister  from  another  denomination,  without 
the  delay  exacted  in  other  cases,  by  a  provision  additional 
to  what  existed  in  a  former  canon,  (the  fifth  of  1820,)  to 
tho  effect.  It  had  been  a  matter  of  difference  of  opinion, 
whether  it  was  exacted  by  the  former  provision,  that  the 
minister  admitted  should  have  undergone  some  species  of 
ordination.     The  present  canon  rendered  this  necessary. 

The  second  canon  extends  the  substance  of  the  twenty- 
sixth  of  1808,  so  as  to  enjoin  inquiry  into  probable  reports 
of  such  offences  of  the  clergy  as  ought  to  subject  them  to 
ecclesiastical  discipline. 

The  third,  in  addition  to  the  eighth  of  1820,  provides,  that 
on  the  deposition  of  a  clergyman,  because  of  his  declaration 
that  he  will  no  longer  officiate  as  a  clergyman  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  it  shall  be  certified,  if  the  fact  be  so,  that  his 
severance  is  not  for  any  cause  affecting  his  moral  standings. 

8 


58 

TIio  fourth  respect:*  a  niiiiister's  cliange  of  residence 
from  one  diocese  to  another.  It  so  far  enlarges  the  sense 
of  the  thirty-iirrft  canon  of  1803,  as  to  provide,  that  in  the 
case  of  liis  being  under  any  charge  in  the  diocese  from 
which  he  removes^,  a  certificate  of  his  acquittal  of  the  same 
shall  be  requisite  to  his  admission  to  any  other. 

The  fifth  made  the  provision,  which  the  crisis  called  for, 
declaring  the  succession  and  the  duties  of  an  assistant 
bishop. 

The  sixth  abrogated  the  neeessitVy  in  the  ease  of  a 
foreigner,  intending  to  oliiciate  in  a  foreign  language,  to 
wait  a  year  for  ordination.  This  provision  was  accommo- 
dated to  the  case  of  the  French  church  in  the  city  of  New- 
York. 

The  seventh  was  additional  to  the  thirty-third  of  1808, 
providing  more  distinctly,  for  consent  to  a  numster's  oflici- 
ating  within  the  parochial  boiindarics  of  any  city,  borough, 
¥iilage,  town,  or  township,  of  which  he  is  not  a  resident. 

The  presiding  bishap  presented  to  the  convention  certain 
documents  relative  to  the  Church  of  Denmark;  which  he 
had  received  through  the  medium  of  the  kind  offices  of 
Peter  Pederson,  Esq.  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  his 
majesty  tiic  King  of  Denmark ;  containing  considerable 
information,  not  gerrerally  ])osscsscd.  These  documents 
have  been  deposited,  with  others  formerly  presented,  and 
in  the  possession  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kemper;  at  whose  in- 
stance those  now  given  were  procured  by  Mr.  Pederson, 
during  his  late  visit  to  his  native  country,  from  Dr.  Munter, 
the  present  bishop  of  Copenhagen. 

There  was  submitted  to  the  convention  the  report  of  the 
Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society  ;  of  whose  pro- 
ceedings there  was  expressed  very  strong  approbation, 
with  an  earnest  recommendation  of  a  more  extensive 
patronage.  Sundry  alterations  of  the  constitution,  pro- 
posed by  the  society,  were  sanctioned  by  the  convention. 

The  proceedings  of  the  trustees  of  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary were  submitted ;  and  there  was  made  a  nomination 
of  the  requisite  number  of  the  trustees  of  the  institution. 

The  committee  on  tlie  canons  was  continued. 

It  was  recommended  to  the  bishops,  to  consider  of  and 
report  to  the  next  General  Convention,  a  plan  for  the 
Episcopal  superintendence  of  the  churches  in  the  states 
destitute  of  bishops. 

The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  signified  their 
wish  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  that  in  their  pastoral  ad- 


5& 

dress,  they  woiild  notice  the  dcficicticy  of  the  nnniber  of 
clergy,  in  comparison  of  the  extent  of  the  fiehi  of  laboiiv  ; 
and  that  with  a  view  to  a  remedy  of  the  evil,  they  would 
recommend  the  instituting  of  scholarship::;.  This  desire 
was  complied  with. 

Tiie  committee  on  the  Psalms  in  metro  was  continued. 

For  the  meeting  of  the  next  General  Convention,  the 
two  houses  agreed  on  the  tliird  ^Vednesday  in  October, 
1832— to  be  in  New-York, 

The  business  of  the  session  was  concluiied  with  prayer 
hy  the  presiding  bishop,  and  by  singing  u  part  of  a  psalm. 

The  next  meeting  of  the  General  Convention  was  in  the 
year  1832,  in  the  city  of  New-YorU.  Tt  began  on  Wednes- 
day, tlie  17th  of  October,  u'.id  ended  its  session  on  Wednes- 
day, the;  3ist  of  the  same  month.  The  bishops  present, 
were  Bishop  Wliite,  of  Peniisylvuiua ;  Bisliop  Griswold,  of 
the  Eastern  Diocese;  IJishop  Bowen,  of  South-Carolina; 
Bishop  Brownell,  of  Connecticut ;  Bishop  il.  IJ.  Onder- 
donk,  assistant  bishop  of  Fenn:--ylvania ;  Bishop  ?«Ieade, 
assistant  bishop  of  Virginia;  Bishop  Stone,  of  Maryland; 
Bishop  B.  T.  Onderdonk,  of  New-York;  and  Bishop  ives, 
of  North-Carolina. 

The  House  of  Bishops  chose  for  tlieir  secretary,  the  Ilev. 
Bird  Wilson,  D.l).  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  Hoase  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  beginning  with 
a  full  deputation,  chose  the  Ilev.  William  E.  ^Vyalt,  D.  D. 
their  president,  and  the  Ilev.  Henry  Anlhon,  D.  D.  their 
secretary. 

The  first  and  principal  business  occurring  and  occupying 
both  of  the  houses,  was  the  singular  state  of  things  which 
had  taken  place  in  the  diocese  of  Ohio.  The  origin  of  it 
was  as  follows  J — 

Jn  forming  the  constitution  of  Kenyon  College,  located 
at  Gambier,  in  that  state,  it  vvas  provided,  that  the  presidency 
should  be  necessarily  connected  with  the  Episcopacy  of  the 
diocese.  In  the  collegiate  tlcpartment,  tlio  principal  autho- 
rity was  vested  in  a  board  of  trustees,  to  which  that  of  the 
j)resident,  and  of  every  professor,  was  subordinate  and  ac- 
countable. The  incongruity  of  this  is  obvious.  In  the 
event  of  the  charge  of  insufficiency  or  of  misconduct  in  the 
president,  the  trustees  must  sit  in  judgment  on  him,  not  only 
in  that  character,  but  as  bishop.  If  he  should  resign,  or 
be  dismissed  from  the  former  of  these  stations,  it  must  be 
Si'om  the  latter  also. 

Tiie  matter  was  soon  tested,  in  the  person  of  the  first 


bishop.  There  arose  serious  and  irreconcilable  differences 
between  him  and  all  the  professors ;  in  which  each  party 
a])pealed  to  the  trustees,  whose  power  was  alike  acknow- 
icdged  by  them.  The  trustees  decided  in  favour  of  the 
professors.  On  this  the  bishop  sent  in  his  resignation ; 
and,  the  convention  of  the  diocese  being  then  in  session, 
he  notified  to  them  the  act ;  considering  it  as  inducing  a 
resignation  of  the  Episcopacy.  The  convention,  after  a 
fruitless  endeavour,  by  a  committee,  to  persuade  to, a  recall 
of  the  resignation,  declared  their  acceptance  of  it.  They 
then  proceeded  to  the  choice  of  a  successor,  and  it  fell  on 
the  Rev.  Charles  P.  M'llvaine,  of  Brooklyn,  in  the  state  of 
New-York. 

This  transaction  was  in  September,  1831,  and  there  the 
matter  rested  until  the  meeting  of  the  diocesan  convention, 
in  the  present  year,  owing  to  doubts  entertained  and  ex- 
pressed in  former  proceedings  of  our  ecclesiastical  councils, 
on  the  subject  of  episcopal  resignations.  At  the  last  diocesan 
convention  of  Ohio,  the  choice  of  Dr.  M'llvaine  was  re- 
newed, which  brought  up  the  matter  before  the  General 
Convention,  combined  with  the  case  of  Bishop  Chase  abovo 
related. 

On  this  case  there  was  no  material  difference  of  opinion 
in  the  House  of  Bishops.  In  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies,  it  led  to  a  wide  range  of  debate  on  the  questions, 
whether  a  bishop  have  a  right  to  resign  for  any  reasons 
judged  by  him  to  be  sufficient ;  and  on  the  supposition  of 
the  negative  of  this,  whether  the  diocese  of  Ohio  be  not 
nevertheless  vacated  by  the  bishop's  abandonment  of  his 
charge,  and  by  his  retirement  beyond  the  limits  of  our  ec- 
clesiastical union,  which  cannot  be  reasonably  stretched  to 
a  territory  not  within  it.  Under  the  latter  of  these  heads, 
there  could  not  be  any  doubt  of  the  fact  to  which  the  argu- 
ment related,  but  it  was  earnestly  pressed  by  a  respectable 
portion  of  the  house,  that  there  should  be  adopted  concilia- 
tory measures,  through  the  interposition  of  the  bishops  to 
renew  the  harmony  between  Bishop  Chase  and  his  late 
diocese.  This  project  miscarried,  and  it  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  held  feasible  by  any  of  the  bishops.  The  result 
was  the  recommending  of  Dr.  M'llvaine  for  consecration. 

The  bishops,  on  receiving  the  instrument  of  his  presenta- 
tion, manifested  the  determination,  that  for  the  acting  under 
it,  and  to  guard  against  capricious  resignations,  there  should 
be  a  canon  prescribing  the  circumstances  in  which  alone 
such  an  act  should  be  held  valid.     Accordingly,  the  canon 


61 

was  prepared,  and  sent  to  the  other  house.  There  it  ex- 
cited a  warm  opposition,  but  was  at  hist  carried.  It  is  the 
thirty-second  of  the  code  now  in  force.  The  bishops  heUl 
it  to  be  an  indispensable  preliminary,  to  the  supply  of  tho 
exigency  in  Ohio,  which,  they  thought,  might  else  be  iiere- 
after  pleaded,  to  sanction  what  they  considered  and  feared 
as  a  future  evil.     TT. 

Out  of  the  case  of  Bishop  Chase,  and  bearing  a  relation 
to  it,  there  arose  two  incidental  subjects,  which  could  not 
but  engage  the  attention  of  the  convention. 

To  the  House  of  Bishops  there  were  communicated  two 
resolves  of  the  convention  of  Ohio,  directed  to  two  points. 
The  first  of  the  resolves  invited  the  bishops  to  exercise  a 
visitatorial  power  over  their  seminary.  The  second  made 
to  the  convention  at  large  the  request,  that  they  would  no- 
tice the  rules,  statutes,  and  other  proceedings  of  the  semi- 
nary, with  a  view  to  the  same,  as  contemplated  in  the  con- 
stitution; meaning,  to  secure  its  adhesion  to  the  Episcopal 
Church.  This  document  was  referred  to  a  committee  of 
both  houses. 

As  the  first  of  the  said  resolves  was  to  be  acted  on  by  the 
bishops  only,  they  declared  themselves  incompetent  to  ex- 
ercise the  power  of  visitors  as  a  body,  leaving  to  each  bishop 
the  privilege  of  acting  in  the  premises  according  to  his  dis- 
cretion. 

The  report  of  the  joint  committee,  accepted  by  both 
houses,  on  the  other  resolve,  contented  itself  with  stating, 
that  the  convention  of  Ohio  had  not  pointed  out  any  con- 
trariety to  the  doctrine,  or  the  discipline,  or  the  worship  of 
the  Church  ;  and  that  they  had  not  been  furnished  with  the 
copies  of  the  proceedings  which  they  were  desired  to  notice. 
With  the  declaration,  that  they  could  not  at  present  accede 
to  the  request  of  the  convention  of  Ohio,  they  said,  that 
they  did  not  intend  thereby  to  accept  or  to  refuse  the  autho- 
rity, which,  by  the  seventh  section  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Theological  Seminary  in  the  diocese  of  Ohio,  is  conferred 
on  this  convention.     UU. 

In  this  convention,  the  canons  of  the  Church  came  under 
a  careful  consideration ;  time  and  experience  having  ren- 
dered some  alterations  expedient,  and  there  having  been 
appointed,  at  the  last  convention,  a  committee  for  the  re- 
modelling of  the  code ;  whose  report  was  made  and  acted 
on  at  the  ])resent  session.     WW. 

The  Church  of  Alabama  was  admitted  to  the  federal 
onion,  as  was  also  that  in  the  territory  of  Midiigan, 


02 

There  was  read  a  report  from  the  trustees  of  ihe  General 
Theological  Seminary,  and  a  call  was  made  on  every  paro- 
chial clergyman  of  this  Church,  for  an  annual  collection  in 
aid  of  the  institution.     XX. 

The  prayer  which  has  been  always  used  in  the  Genera! 
Convention  during  their  session,  being  the  same  which  has 
been  provided  by  the  Church  of  England,  was  so  prepared 
and  enacted,  as  to  be  used  in  all  our  churches  during  all 
future  sessions. 

It  was  thought  not  unworthy  of  the  assembled  body,  to 
give  directions  as  to  the  postures  to  be  observed  during  the 
administration  of  the  communion.  There  have  been  dif- 
ferent constructions  of  the  rubrics,  as  to  that  point,  the  di- 
versity of  positions,  in  persons  equally  de-irous  of  rubrical 
conformity,  bearing  a  very  unseemly  appearance. 

There  being  something  wanting,  to  perfect  the  permission 
given  at  the  last  convention,  of  the  use  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  translated  into  the  French  langiiage,  the 
defect  was  now  supplied. 

The  churches  in  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Lousiana, 
were  authorized  to  associate  in  the  choice  of  a  bishop. 

There  was  an  alteration  made  in  the  constitution  of  the 
General  Missionary  Society,  providing,  that  they  shall  meet 
triennially,  in  the  place  where  the  General  Convention  shall 
hold  its  session ;  the  body  of  deputies  to  apjwint  the  times 
of  meeting,  and  nine  to  form  a  quorum. 

There  was  corrected  an  error  in  "  The  Form  of  Private 
Baptism,"  as  it  stands  in  the  editions  of  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer.  The  error  was  pronounced  to  be  tyjmgraphi- 
cal,  and  may  be  perceived  to  be  such,  by  a  coniparison  of 
the  form  with  that  of  the  Church  of  England :  no  alteration 
in  the  premises  having  been  made  by  this  Church. 

It  was  proposed  to  the  next  convention,  to  insert  among 
the  occasional  prayers,  that  provided  for  conventional  meet- 
ings, as  above  stated. 

The  bishojTs  ordained  a  rule  of  seniority  and  of  presidency, 
to  be  observed  in  their  body;  also  a  rule  of  seniority  in  re- 
lation to  bishops  elect.     YY. 

They  also  recorded  their  pointed  disallowance  of  the 
union  of  the  Episcopacy  with  the  presidency  of  a  college, 
designed  to  be  indissoluble,  as  constituted  in  Ohio. 

There  was  proposed  and  adopted  the  position,  that  in  the 
rubric  immediately  before  *'  The  Administration  of  the 
Holy  Communion,"  instead  of  "  standing  at  the  north  side 
of  the  table,"  it  should  be,  "  standing  at  the  right  side  of 


G8 

the  table."  This  is  certainly  the  most  nc^reeablc  to  the 
spirit  of  the  rubric,  and  the  most  consistent,  where  a  nhiuch 
does  not  stand  cast  and  west,  with  the  table  at  the  former, 
as  were  all  the  churches  of  England  when  the  liturgy  was 
framed.     ZZ. 

In  addition  to  the  election  to  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  M'llvainc,  for  Ohio,  there  came  before  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  that  of  the  Rev.  John  11.  Hop- 
kins, for  the  diocese  of  Vermont ;  that  of  the  Rev.  Benjamin 
B.  Smith,  for  the  diocese  of  Kentucky ;  and  that  of  the 
Rev.  George  W.  Doane,  for  the  diocese  of  New-Jersey. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  two  houses,  there  was  read  by  the 
presiding  bishop  a  pastoral  letter,  issued  by  the  House  of 
Bishops. 

The  four  reverend  brethren  elected  to  the  Episcopacy, 
were  consecrated  in  St.  Paul's  Chapel,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  on  the  31st  of  October,  in  the  year  1832;  the  day 
concluding  the  forty-sixth  year  since  the  administrator  of 
the  service  embarked  for  England  in  the  said  city,  with  the 
view  of  receiving  consecration.     AAA. 

After  the  said  act,  the  convention  adjourned,  to  meet  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  third  Wednesday  in  August, 
in  the  year  1835;  there  being  previously  recited  some 
prayers  by  the  presiding  bishop,  and  the  133d  Psalm  sung. 

The  next  General  Convention  was  held  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  in  the  year  1835,  from  the  19th  of  August  to 
the  1st  of  September,  inclusive. 

The  session  was  opened  in  St.  Peter's  Church,  when  a 
sermon  was  delivered  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Stone  ; 
and  prayers  were  read  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wyatt,  and  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Burroughs. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Wyatt  was  chosen  president  of  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies;  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Anthon, 
secretary  of  the  same. 

in  the  House  of  Bishops  there  was  prepared  an  admis- 
sion into  the  ecclesiastical  union,  of  the  diocese  of  Illinois, 
with  their  bishop,  the  Right  Rev.  Philander  Chase,  D.  D. 
who,  having  resigned  the  Episcopacy  of  the  diocese  of 
Ohio,  was  considered  as  eligible  to  this  new  charge.  The 
measure  was  concurred  in  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies.     BBB. 

The  House  of  Bishops  disagreed  to  the  proposal  of  the 
last  General  Convention,  altering  the  rubric  before  "  The 
Selections  of  Psalms ;"  which  was  concurred  in  by  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.     CCC, 


64 

The  House  of  nishops  agreed  to  the  proposal  of  the  last 
General  Convention,  altering  the  rubric  before  the  eoni- 
munion  service,  by  substituting  the  word  "  right"  for  the 
word  "  north."  This  also  was  agreed  to  by  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.     DDJD. 

There  took  place  an  entire  change  in  the  organization 
of  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society.  The 
convention  are,  in  future,  to  be  that  body.  They  are  to 
act  through  the  medium  of  a  board,  the  members  of  which 
were  accordingly  chosen  towards  the  close  of  the  session. 
Under  this  board,  and  accountable  to  it,  there  are  two 
committees,  one  for  the  domestic  department,  and  the  other 
for  the  foreign.  They  are  located,  the  former  in  New- 
York,  and  the  latter  in  Philadelphia ;  with  liability  to  the 
change  of  place,  at  the  discretion  of  the  board  of  missions. 
EEE.* 

Provision  was  made  for  the  division  of  the  larger  dio- 
cesses ;  when,  in  their  opinion  respectively,  from  increase 
of  the  Episcopal  population,  such  a  measure  shall  become 
necessary  to  the  giving  of  due  cftcct  to  the  Episcopacy. 
For  the  accomplishing  of  this,  there  was  required  an  alter- 
ation of  the  second  article  of  the  constitution,  which  was 
therefore  recommended.     FFF. 

To  the  board  of  missions,  constituted  as  above,  the  con- 
vention committed  the  providing  for  the  support  of  two 
missionary  bishops  ;  one  for  the  state  of  Louisiana,  and  tho 
territories  of  Florida  and  Arkansas  ;  and  the  other  for  Mis- 
souri and  Indiana.  For  the  former  of  these  departments, 
the  House  of  Bishops  nominated  the  Rev.  Francis  L.  Hawks, 
D.  D. ;  and  for  the  latter,  the  Rev.  Jackson  Kemper,  D.  D. 
In  each  of  the  cases,  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Depu- 
ties concurred,  by  a  unanimous  election.     GGG. 

There  was  also  provision  made  for  the  consecrating  of  a 
bishop  for  any  country  exterior  to  the  United  States,  where 
such  a  measure  should  be  expedient  for  the  discharge  of 
the  connnission  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  nations.    HHH. 

In  the  House  of  Bishops  certain  proposals  were  matured, 
for  the  better  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  But, 
the  proposals  being  sent  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies,  towards  the  close  of  the  session,  they  voted  a 
reference  of  the  subject  to  the  next  General  Convention, 
and  in  this  the  House  of  Bishops  concurred.     III. 


Both  boards  arc  now  ia  New-York. 


65 

There  was  referred  to  certain  clergymen,  acquainted 
with  the  German  language,  the  providing  of  a  translation 
of  the  liturgy  therein.     KKK. 

It  was  determined  by  both  houses,  that  in  the  confession 
in  the  morning  and  evening  prayer,  the  voices  of  the  minis- 
ter and  of  the  congregation  should  be  concurrent ;  and  that 
the  word  "  Amen"  should  be  in  the  Roman  letter,  to  show 
that  it  is  to  be  repeated  by  both.  In  the  same  letter  the 
word  is  to  be  printed,  and  for  the  same  reason,  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  after  the  confession,  in  the  trisagion  and 
in  the  Creed.     LLL. 

Directions  were  issued,  and  committees  appointed,  for 
correct  editions  of  the  Bible,  and  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  in  future.     MMM. 

Both  houses  accepted,  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  his 
present  of  certain  books  and  other  documents,  illustrative 
of  the  early  history  of  the  Episcopal  Church.     NNN. 

Recent  circumstances  having  rendered  a  few  additional 
canons  expedient;  and  experience  having  suggested  the 
use  of  a  few  alterations  of  those  now  in  force ;  the  said 
exigencies  were  provided  for.  Of  measures  to  that  effect 
there  is  no  need  of  a  recital  here ;  as  the  canons,  in  their 
present  form,  will,  it  is  presumed,  be  printed  in  a  separate 
pamphlet.     OOO, 


2.   ADDITIONAL    STATEMENTS 


REMARKS. 


ADDl  riONAL   STATEMENTS,    &c. 


Ae  Page  19.     Of  the  Q^uestio/i  of  American  Episcopaa/,  as 
agitated  in  the  Colonies. 

There  were  two  periods  which  were  especially  productive 
of  pamphlets  and  newspaper  essays  on  this  subject.  The 
first  of  these  periods  was  about  the  time  of  the  civil  con- 
troversy, which  arose  on  the  occasion  of  the  stamp  act. 
The  question  of  American  Episcopacy  was  brought  forward 
in  a  pamphlet  by  the  Rev.  East  Apthorp,  missionary  at 
Cambridge,  3Iassachusetts,  a  native  of  that  province,  but 
afterward  possessed  of  several  considerable  preferments 
in  England.  His  production  was  answered  by  Dr.  Mayhew, 
a  congregational  minister  of  Boston.  Several  others  en- 
gaged in  the  dispute  ;  among  whom  was  Archbishop  Seeker, 
although  his  name  was  not  prefixed  to  his  pamphlet,  which 
has  been  since  printed  in  his  works. 

The  other  period  was  a  few  years  before  the  revolutionary 
war,  when  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chandler,  of  Elizabeth-Town,  New- 
Jersey,  made  an  appeal  to  the  public,  in  favour  of  the 
object  of  obtaining  an  American  Episcopate.  There  were 
various  answers  to  the  pamphlet  and  defences  of  it,  in  other 
pamphlets  published  by  the  Doctor  and  others.  In  addition 
to  these,  the  newspapers  abounded  with  periodical  and 
other  productions.  The  author  of  the  present  performance 
was  at  that  time  a  youth ;  but  from  what  he  then  heard 
and  observed,  he  believes  it  was  impossible  to  have  obtained 
the  concurrence  of  a  resi>ectable  number  of  laymen  in  any 
measure  for  the  obtaining  of  an  American  bishop.  What 
could  have  been  the  reason  of  this,  when  there  was  scarcely 
a  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church  who  would  not  have 
been  ready  to  avow  his  preference  of  Episcopacy  to  Pres- 
jjytery ;  and  of  a  form  of  prayer,  to  that  which  is  extern- 


70  Note  to  page  19. 

porary  ?  It  is  believed  to  have  been  owing  to  an  exisiing 
jealousy,  that  American  Episcopacy  would  have  been  made 
an  instrument  of  cn(orcin<.;  liic  now  plan  of  civil  govern- 
ment, W'iiich  had  been  adopted  in  Great-Britain;  in  con- 
trariety to  original  compact  and  future  security  for  freedom : 
a  regard  to  which  was  as  prevalent  among  Episcopalians, 
as  among  any  description  of  their  fellow-citizens. 

Perhaps  these  sentiments  may  bo  supposed  to  be  con- 
tradicted by  the  circumstance,  that  during  the  revolutionary 
war,  a  considerable  number  of  the  American  people  became 
inclined  to  the  British  cause;  and,  that  of  them,  a  great 
proportion  were  Episcopalians.  But  this  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  sentiments  expressed.  On  the  subject  of  parlia- 
mentary taxation,  it  would  probably  have  been  impossible 
to  have  found  in  any  city,  town,  or  vicinity  of  the  colonies, 
such  a  number  of  persons  not  vehemently  opposed  to  it,  as 
would  have  been  sufficient  to  form  a  congregation.  Out 
of  the  sphere  of  governmental  influence,  there  was  scarcely 
a  man  of  that  description.  When  the  controversy  became 
ripened  into  w^ar,  some  fell  off  from  the  cause,  from  danger 
to  their  persons  and  their  properties ;  others,  from  the 
sentiment  tiiat  the  public  evil  hazarded  might  prove  worse 
than  that  intended  to  be  avoided;  and  others  perhaps, 
although  very  few,  from  scruples  of  conscience.  They  who 
were  influenced  by  these,  had  stopped  short  at  the  taking 
of  arms ;  for  which,  the  passion  was  general.  To  find 
freedom  in  this  step,  and  yet  to  withdraw  while  the  cause 
of  so  important  a  measure  existed,  may  have  been  the 
dictate  of  prudence,  but  could  not  have  been  that  of  con- 
science. AH  the  aforesaid  circumstances  operated  with 
increased  vigour,  when  ihe  question  of  independence  was 
forced  on  the  reluctant  public.  Had  the  British  arms  suc- 
ceeded, and  thus  the  right  of  parliamentary  taxation  been 
established — for  there  was  no  ofler  of  relincpjishment  of  it, 
until  after  the  alliance  with  France — a  membership  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  would  have  been  little  more  than  a  poli- 
tical mark,  to  distingui!^:h  those  who  should  advocate  claims 
hostile  to  American  interests. 

To  persons  who  may  give  their  attention  to  tlio  colonial 
history,  the  question  may  occur — Why  did  not  the  British 
government  so  far  consult  its  own  interests,  as  to  autho- 
rize the  consecrating  of  bishops  for  America?  This  (pics- 
tion  shall  be  considered,  on  the  ground  of  views  taken  of 
past  incidents.  Any  ministry,  who  should  have  ventured 
on  the  measure,  w  ould  have  raised  up  against  themselves 


Note  to  page  19,  71 

the  whole  of  the  dissenting  intercBt  in  England,  and  the 
weight  of  that  interest  was  more  iiiijiortant  to  them  in  their 
estimation  than  the  making  of  a  party  for  the  mother 
country  in  the  colonics  The  matter  is  resolvable  into  tiie 
ignorance  of  govevnmcnt  of  the  real  state  of  the  people, 
whom  they  expected  to  govern  so  easily,  at  so  great  a  dis- 
tance. Again,  this  ignorance  is  resolvable  into  their  de- 
pending on  information  received  from  persons  whose  jiulg- 
mcnts,  or  whose  honesty,  they  ought,  the  most  of  all,  to  have 
distrusted:  an  error,  which  hung  heavily  on  all  their  pro- 
ceedings, until  the  period  when  it  ceased  to  be  of  conse- 
quence. 

Lest  it  should  be  thought,  that  the  dissenting  interest  in 
England  has  been  magnified,  it  ought  to  be  known,  that  the 
forces  of  the  diiTcrent  denominations  of  dissenters — with  the 
exception  of  the  people  called  (Quakers — was  concentrated 
in  a  committee  in  London.  The  author  was  acquainted 
with  a  member  of  that  committee  in  England,  in  1771  and 
1772,  and  knew  that  he  had  free  access  to  the  ministry. 
The  impression  then  received,  was  its  being  an  object  of 
government  to  avoid  any  thing  of  a  religious  nature,  which 
might  set  the  dissenters  in  a  political  opposition.  They  had 
great  influence  in  elections  to  parliament. 

As  to  the  laity's  uniting  in  an  application  for  the  Episco- 
pacy, it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  this,  if  to  bo  found  any 
where,  would  have  been  found  in  Virginia,  a  province  set- 
tled by  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  who  were  still 
the  great  mass  of  its  inhabitants.  Ifow  far  they  were  from 
favouring  the  endeavour,  may  be  learned  from  the  following 
statement. 

In  the  year  i  771,  a  convention  of  twelve  clergymen,  there 
being  about  a  hundred  in  the  province,  and,  after  a  larger 
convention  had  rejected  the  measure  now  adopted,  drew  up 
a  petition  to  the  crown  for  the  appointment  of  an  American 
bishop.  Four  of  the  clergy  protested,  and,  because  of  their 
protest,  received  the  thanks  of  the  House  of  Burgesses. 
When  it  is  considered,  that  a  great  majority  of  that  house 
must  have  been  of  the  establishment ;  that  there  never  had 
been  any  attempt  among  them  to  throw  off  any  property  of 
its  distinctive  character ;  that  they  must  have  felt  the  want 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline  over  immoral  clergymen,  and  the 
burden  of  sending  to  England  for  ordination ;  there  seems 
no  way  of  accounting  for  their  conduct,  but  the  danger  re- 
sulting from  the  newly  introduced  system  of  colonial  govern- 
ment.    This  is  warranted  by  the  absurdity  of  the  reasons 


72  Note  io  page  19. 

on  which  the  protest  of  the  four  clergymen  was  bottometfj 
among  which,  perhaps  the  most  absurd,  was  professed  re- 
spect for  the  diocesan  authority  of  the  bishops  of  London  ; 
it  being  notorious,  that  the  then  bishop  and  his  immediate 
predecessors  had  manifested  zeal  for  the  appointment  now 
opposed.  In  consequence  of  the  proceeding  of  the  House  of 
Burgesses,  a  convention  of  the  clergy  of  New-York  and 
New-Jersey  published  an  address  to  the  Episcopalians  in 
Virginia,  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Chandler.  It  must  be  evident 
on  reading  the  address,  that  the  reasoning  of  it  was  unan- 
swerable; and  that,  as  the  address  expresses,  there  were, 
on  the  other  side  "  only  unreasonable  jealousies  and  ground- 
less susj)icions :"  unreasonable  and  groundless,  so  far  as 
they  were  declared,  and  referring  to  titles  to  civil  offices, 
and  the  like ;  while  there  was  a  sentiment  silently  operat- 
ing, to  the  effect  above  stated.  Whether  the  address  of 
the  twelve  clergy  crossed  the  Atlantic  is  not  here  known. 
This  was  to  depend  on  its  being  signed  by  a  majority  of 
the  clergy  of  the  province ;  which  was  probably  prevented 
by  the  public  sentiment.  It  is  remarkable,  that  of  the  two 
gentlemen  appointed  by  the  House  of  Burgesses  to  deliver 
their  thanks  to  the  four  protesters,  the  first  named  of  them 
— Richard  Henry  Lee,  fifteen  years  after,  and  then  presi- 
dent of  Congress,  did  not  hesitate  to  furnish  to  the  two 
bishops  who  went  for  consecration,  a  certificate,  that  the 
business  on  which  they  went  was  consistent  with  the  civil 
institutions  of  the  American  republic* 

Certain  it  is,  that  no  endeavours  for  a  lay  petition  for 
Episcopacy  were  made.  Some  accounted  for  this,  on  the 
principle,  that  as  the  wished  for  bishop  would  have  a  rela- 
tion to  the  clergy  only,  the  matter  concerned  them  and 
none  others.  But  what  sort  of  a  bishop  would  he  have 
been,  who  should  have  had  no  relation  to  the  laity,  except 
through  the  medium  of  tlie  clergy  ?  The  well  informed 
advocates  for  Episcopacy  must  doubtless  have  known  the 
imperfection  of  such  a  scheme :  but  they  who  suggested 
the  proviso  must  have  considered  it  as  a  prudential  ex- 
pedient. 

*  For  tho  porrcctues^  of  tho  opinion  expressed  of  the  utter  in;ibility  of  the 
British  adniini.stratioiH  for  the  government  of  the  colonies,  there  may  be  here  a 
reference  to  liissett's  History  ol'  the  Reign  of  George  III.  This  author  wrote  in 
opposition  to  IJelsham,  and  may,  therefore,  be  .snp])osed.  on  tlie  whole,  favourable 
to  government.  But  he  points  out,  with  candour,  the  contrariety  between  the 
views  of  ministers  and  the  consequences  of  their  acts — evidently  bottomed  on 
false  information,  and  their  relying  on  tin;  persons  whom  they  ought  the  most  to 
have  (listrusteil. 


Note  to  page  19.  73^- 

Had  bishops  been  consecrated  for  America  on  the  plan 
projjosed  by  Archbishop  Seeker ;  the  civil  government  no 
further  intcrreritiir  than  in  tlie  grant  of  the  royal  permis- 
sion ;  it  is  ditiiciih.  to  perceive,  how  hinderance  could  have 
been  attempted  by  any  description  of  persons,  without  an 
avowal  of  intolerance ;  and  v.ithout  a  disposition  to  un- 
provoked insurrection,  beyond  what  can  be  supposed  from 
any  thing  that  passed  of  a  poMtical  description.  That  good 
prelate's  scheme  is  unfolded  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Walpole, 
printed  among  the  prelate's  works.  From  the  circum- 
stance, that,  since  the  revolution,  an  act  of  Parliament  was 
held  necessary  to  permit  the  giving  of  a  beginning  to  the 
American  succession,  it  may  be  thought,  that  the  archbishop 
was  mistaken  in  his  opinion  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  license 
of  the  king.  But  this  would  not  be  a  correct  inference. 
The  case  became  altered  by  the  event  of  American  inde- 
pendence:  and  although  there  was  legislative  interference 
in  regard  to  the  Church  in  the  United  States,  there  have 
been  bishops  consecrated  for  Nova-Scotia  and  Canada,  on 
royal  authority  only;  agreeably  to  the  opinion  which  had 
been  expressed  by  Archbishop  Seeker.  On  the  ground  of 
the  practicability  of  giving  bishops  to  America,  without 
invoking  the  aid  of  Parliament;  it  was  the  opinion  of  the 
author,  at  the  time  of  the  controversy  here  noticed,  that  no 
disturbance  would  have  hap|>ened,  however  threatened  by 
some  who  were  indeed  very  violent  on  the  subject. 

But  he  is  not  backward  to  acknowledge,  that  he  thought 
he  foresaw  difficulties  to  the  Episcopal  Church,  from  the 
other  source  here  hinted.  It  was  not  unlikely,  that  the 
British  government,  had  they  sanctioned  an  Episcopacy  in 
the  colonies,  would  have  endeavoured  to  render  it  subser- 
vient to  the  support  of  a  party,  on  the  plan  of  the  newly 
projected  domination.  In  this  case,  the  effects  would  have 
been  hostile  to  the  estimation  of  Episcopacy  in  the  minds 
of  the  ))eojile;  the  great  mass  of  whom,  including  the  best 
informed,  and  those  who  had  the  property  of  the  country  in 
their  hands,  had  set  themselves  in  a  determined,  and,  as 
the  author  thinks,  a  justifiable  opposition  to  the  new  system. 

It  is  well  known,  that  religious  opinion  has  been  often 
made,  by  circumstances,  the  test  and  the  instrument  of  a 
political  party  ;  when  the  views  of  the  party  had  not  any 
more  natural  connexion  with  the  opinion,  than  with  its 
opposite.  Thus,  in  England,  Arminianism  was  conceived 
of  as  allied  to  absolute  monarchy,  and  Calvinism  to  popular 
privilege ;  at  the  same  time  that,  in  the  United  Netherlands, 

10 


74  Note  Ut  page  1 6. 

the  latter  supported  the  monarchical,  and  the  former  the 
republican  branch  of  the  constitution.  The  grievances 
which  produced  the  American  war,  were  the  result  of 
claims  of  one  peo])le  over  another;  and  not  of  the  question, 
as  to  what  would  be  the  wisest  distribution  of  the  internal 
powers  of  either.  Besides,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  Epis- 
copacy, as  now  settled  in  America,  must  be  confessed  at 
least  as  analogous  as  Presbytery — the  author  thinks  much 
more  so — to  the  plan  of  civil  government,  which  mature 
deliberation  has  established  over  the  union;  and  to  those 
plans  which,  even  during  the  heats  of  popular  commotion, 
were  adopted  for  the  individual  states.  The  sentiment 
wished  to  be  here  impressed,  is,  that  Episcopacy,  under  the 
old  regimen,  would  have  probably  been  considered  as  sub- 
servient to  an  authority,  of  the  decline  and  final  abrogation 
of  which  there  were  causes,  which  must  have  produced 
their  effect  at  last ;  if  the  effect  had  not  been  hastened  much 
faster  than  could  have  been  expected,  by  intemperate  coun- 
sels and  by  injudicious  measures. 

It  would  be  a  misinterpretation  of  what  the  author  has 
here  written,  were  it  applied  as  a  censure  on  what  some  of 
his  brethren,  who  were  before  him,  have  advanced  in  favour 
of  their  right  to  an  Episcopate.  Far  from  this,  he  honours 
their  meniories  ;  and  considers  the  arguments  on  which  they 
rested  their  claim,  as  unanswerable.  What  has  been  said, 
is  merely  an  argument  from  certain  causes  existing  in  tlie 
character  and  the  circumstances  of  the  American  people, 
to  what  would  have  been  the  eft'ects  in  a  supposed  case, 
which  did  not  occur. 

It  may  be  thought,  that  there  should  be  allowed  a  large 
deduction  from  the  weight  of  the  observations  made,  on 
account  of  the  proportion  of  the  American  people,  whose 
conduct  or  whose  wishes  were  in  contrariety  to  the  ge- 
neral sentiment  of  their  countrymen.  But  this  is  apparent 
only.  There  were  no  persons  more  hostile  to  the  British 
claims,  than  they  who  withdrew  from  the  resistance  of 
them :  this  with  very  few  exceptions.  When  the  contro- 
versy issued  in  war,  and  afterward  in  independence,  at 
each  of  the  periods  there  was  a  large  defection  from  the 
American  cause,  produced  by  the  motives  which  have  been 
detailed. 

No  doubt,  the  number  of  dissentients  was  increased  by 
unjustifiable  measures  of  the  newly  erected  governments  in 
some  of  the  states.  Still,  the  sentiment  was  universal,  of 
the  sacred  nature  of  the  rights  invaded,  and  would  again 


Ncfte  to  page  19.  75 

have  had  its  effect  on  the  minds  of  the  temporary  advocates 
of  Great-Britain,  had  the  war  terminated  in  her  favour. 

Further,  the  opinions  here  expressed  may  seem  indica- 
tive of  aversion  to  the  British  character,  in  the  author's 
mind.  Far  from  entertaining  any  such  aversion,  he  prefers 
the  laws  and  the  manners  of  the  British  nation  to  those  of 
any  other;  either  from  partiality  to  the  country  of  his  an- 
cestors, or,  as  he  believes,  in  consequence  of  an  impartial 
comparison.  But  he  reasons  on  the  principle,  which  he 
thinks  warranted  by  the  experience  of  all  ages,  that  national 
domination,  under  whatever  circumstances,  will  be  tyranny. 
An  individual  may  be  a  tyrant,  or  otherwise,  according  to 
his  personal  character :  but  no  people  ever  stuck  at  any 
crimes  which  advanced  their  wealth  at  the  expense  of  those 
governed  by  them;  especially,  if  it  were  at  a  distance. 

In  short,  however  great  the  inconveniences  brought  on 
the  Episcopal  Church  in  America  by  the  revolution ,  the 
author  has  all  along  cherished  the  hope,  that  they  will  not 
be  permanently  so  injurious  to  her,  as  would  have  been  her 
alliance  with  a  distant  power,  in  hostility  to  the  common 
interests  of  the  country;  accompanied  by  the  jealousies 
and  the  odium  which  would  have  been  attached  to  that 
circumstance. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  thought,  that  a  deduction  should  be 
made  from  any  apparent  weight  in  the  theory  here  deliver- 
ed, on  account  of  the  estabHshments  existing  in  Maryland 
and  Virginia ;  which  would  not  have  been  overset  by  the 
British  government.  The  subsequently  prostrate  condition 
of  the  Church  in  these  states,  may  be  urged  as  a  proof  of 
the  advantages  which  would  have  attended  a  continuance 
of  the  establishment.  But  this  reasoning  is  inadmissible, 
if,  as  before  sHpposed,  the  prostration  was  owing  to  the 
preceding  system,  of  an  amendment  of  which  there  was  no 
prospect.  Besides,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  before 
the  revolution,  the  parts  of  those  states,  now  the  most 
populous,  were  fast  settling  by  persons  differing  from  the 
establishment.  Even  in  the  ohl  parts,  numbers  were  leaving 
the  Church,  to  attend  the  ministrations  of  preachers,  who 
had  recently  availed  themselves  of  the  very  little  regard 
entertained  for  therr  clergy,  to  produce  a  popular  desertion 
of  the  Church  itself.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  was 
hardly  to  be  expected,  that  the  establishment  would  have 
redounded  to  the  reputation  and  the  increase  of  the  Church 
generally.  It  was  becoming  more  and  more  unpopular; 
\yith  some,  because  it  was  not  considered  as  promoting 


76  Note  to  page  20. 

piety ;  and  with  these  and  others,  because  they  thought  the 
provision  for  it  a  useless  burden  on  the  community.* 

There  is  a  remarkiible  fact  in  Virginia,  countenancing 
the  sentiments  delivered.  After  the  fall  of  the  establish- 
ment, a  considerable  proportion  of  the  clergy  continued  to 
enjoy  the  glebes — the  law  considering  them  as  freeholds 
during  life — without  performing  a  single  act  of  sacred  duty, 
except,  perhaps,  that  of  marriage.  They  knew  that  their 
pubhc  ministrations  would  not  have  been  attended. 


B.  Page  20.    Of  the  ^ueMion  of  using  ike  Liturgy,  exclusively 
of  the  Prayers  for  the  King  and  the  Royal  Family. 

As  the  cessation  of  the  public  worship  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  was  very  much  owing  to  scruples  on  this  point,  it 
may  be  thought  important,  in  reference  to  such  future 
political  changes,  as  are  rendered  possible  by  the  uncer- 
tainty of  human  affairs. 

So  far  as  the  author  knows  or  believes,  the  difficulties 
which  arose  on  this  account  were  not  of  great  extent  in  the 
southern  states.  In  Maryland  and  in  Virginia,  there  were 
many  of  the  clergy  whose  connexions  with  their  flocks  were 
rendered,  by  their  personal  characters,  dependent  wholly 
on  the  continuance  of  the  establishment,  and,  of  course, 
fell  with  it.  Again,  many  worthy  ministers  entertained 
scruples  in  regard  to  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  states, 


*  On  the  qnestion  of  burden,  as  detached  from  all  other  considerations,  there 
is  a  fallacy  not  geuerall)'  perceived.  Under  ihe  present  system,  if  the  gospel 
should  be  supported  in  the  states  concerned,  as  may  now  be  confidently  expected, 
the  weight  of  the  expense  will  fall  disproportioiiably  on  people  of  moi !eiate  means. 
During  liie  establishment  it  fell  on  llieiich,  in  tolerable  projiorliou  to  their  wealili. 

There  is  another  fallacy  in  this  business,  in  llie  reproach  bioiiglil  on  the  Cluiich, 
when  it  ought  to  have  fallen  on  the  want  of  wisdom  in  iho  making  of  ministerial 
endowments,  without  some  provision  for  ministerial  fidelily. 

Hence,  however,  a  great  proportion  of  the  iiiipoptilarity,  which  led  to  the 
seizure  and  the  sale  of  churches  and  glebes  bv  the  legislature  of  Virginia.  It 
ought  to  be  remembered,  to  the  honour  of  Patrick  Henry,  thai  he  resisted  the  said 
act,  and  that  it  could  never  be  obtained  until  after  his  decease.  This  eminent 
man  has  been  accused,  of  having  always  set  his  sail  to  tiie  popular  gale.  There 
are  several  facts  against  the  charge,  and  this  is  one  of  them:  for  he  iiad  to  resist, 
through  many  years,  the  united  efi'oils  of  iren  Jioslileto  revealed  religion  in  every 
form,  and  of  other  men  who  were  jjrofessors  of  religion,  but  cherished  rancorous 
hatred  against  the  Church  of  England  in  particular. 

The  author  is  the  more  free  in  sjjeaking  of  die  act  of  the  legislature  of  Virginia, 
as  it  will  go  down  to  posterity  loaded  with  the  reproach  of  unroiisliliitionality,  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  Stales:  although  their  judgniciit  wiil  have  no 
^effect  beyond  the  district  of  Colanibia.     See  Cranch's  Reports,  vol»  ii. 


Note  to  page  20.  77 

\vithout  the  taking  of  which,  they  were  prohibited  from 
officiating,  by  laws  alike  impolitic  and  severe.  But  it  must 
be  seen,  that  scruples  of  this  sort  were  of  another  nature 
than  the  question  here  stated  for  consideration.  In  the 
northern  states  there  were  no  such  laws,  but  the  clergy 
generally  declined  officiating,  on  the  ground  of  their  eccle- 
siastical tie  to  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England.  As 
they  were  generally  men  of  respectable  characters,  the 
discontinuance  of  their  administrations  had  an  unhappy 
effect  on  the  Church ;  and  is  here  mentioned,  as  one  cause 
contributing  to  the  low  state  in  which  we  were  left  by  the 
revolutionary  war. 

With  all  possible  tenderness  to  the  plea  of  conscientious 
scruples,  it  will  not  be  rash  to  affirm,  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  them  in  the  promise — not  an  oath,  as  some 
suppose,  although  of  equal  solemnity — made  previously  to 
ordination  in  the  Church  of  England.  It  is  as  follows : — 
The  candidate  declares — "  That  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  of  ordering  of  bishops,  priest-s,  and  deacons, 
containeth  in  it  nothing  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  ;  and 
that  it  may  lawfully  so  be  used ;  and  that  he  himself  will 
use  the  form  in  the  said  book  prescribed,  in  public  prayer 
and  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  no  other." 

This  promise  ought  to  be  taken  in  connexion  with  the 
pastoral  duty  generally  ;  and  with  the  discharge  of  it  as 
stipulated  for  in  the  promises  made  at  ordination ;  which 
require  of  the  minister  the  reading  of  the  prayers,  and  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments. 

But  there  occurs  a  case,  in  which  there  is  an  external 
necessity  of  omitting  a  few  petitions,  not  involved  in  any 
Christian  duty  ;  so  far  as  civil  rulers  are  identified  byname, 
or  other  personal  description.  In  such  a  case,  it  seems 
evident,  that  the  promise  is  the  most  nearly  complied  with, 
by  the  use  of  the  liturgy  to  the  extent  which  the  external 
necessity  permits. 

When  the  Church  of  England  was  oppressed  under  the 
usurpations  of  parliament  and  of  Cromwell,  the  clergy 
were  molested  in  the  use  of  the  liturgy,  because  it  was 
made  illegal  by  act  of  parliament.  But  wherever  the  use 
of  it  was  winked  at,  of  which  there  are  instances  on  record, 
they  did  not  hesitate  to  avail  themselves  of  the  indulgence, 
with  the  exception  of  the  political  prayers  ;  the  use  of  which 
would  have  been  highly  penal. 


78  Note  to  page  22. 


C.  Page  22.     Of  the  Mectinir  in  New-Bmnswick^  in  May, 

1784. 

The  first  communications,  between  the  clergy  of  different 
states,  were  at  this  meeting.  It  took  its  rise  from  a  pre- 
vious agreement  between  those  of  the  city  of  New- York 
and  those  of  Philadelphia,  carried  on  through  the  medium 
of  the  Rev.  Abraham  Beach,  then  resident  in  or  near 
Brunswick.     The  substance  of  what  passed  is  as  follows: 

There  met,  from  the  state  of  New-York,  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
Bloomer,  Benjamin  3Ioore,  and  Thomas  3Ioore;  from  New- 
Jersey,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Beach,  Fraser,  and  Ogden ;  and 
from  Pennsylvania,  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  Dr.  Magaw,  and 
Mr.  Blackwell.  There  happened  to  be  in  the  town,  on  civil 
business,  some  lay-gentlemen,  who,  being  represented  by 
the  clergy  from  New-York  and  New-Jersey  as  taking  an 
interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  were  requested  to  at- 
tend. They  were  Mr.  John  Stephens,  Mr.  Richard  Ste- 
phens, Mr.  Richard  Dennis,  and  Mr.  Hiet.  The  author 
presided  at  the  meeting,  and  opened  it  with  a  sermon.  Mr. 
B.  Moore  was  secretary. 

The  first  day  was  chiefly  taken  up  with  discussing  prin- 
ciples of  ecclesiastical  union.  The  clergy  from  Philadel- 
phia read  to  the  assembly  the  principles  just  before  adopted, 
under  appointments  of  their  vestries,  as  will  be  related 
hereafter,  and  strongly  recommended  their  taking  of  similar 
measures.  The  next  morning,  the  author  was  taken  aside, 
before  the  meeting,  by  Mr.  Benjamin  Moore,  who  expressed 
the  wish  of  himself  and  others,  that  nothing  should  be  urged 
further  on  the  subject,  as  they  found  themselves  peculiarly 
circumstanced,  in  consequence  of  their  having  joined  the 
clergy  of  Connecticut  in  their  application  for  the  consecra- 
tion of  a  bishop.  This  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
clergy  from  Philadelphia,  what  they  had  not  known,  that 
Dr.  Samuel  Seabury,  of  the  state  of  New-York,  who  had 
sailed  for  England  just  before  the  evacuation  of  New-York 
by  the  British  troops,  carried  with  him  a  petition  to  the 
English  bishops  for  his  consecration. 

In  consequence  of  the  measure  taken  as  above  stated, 
the  gentlemen  concerned  in  it  thought,  that  during  the 
pending  of  their  application,  they  could  not  consistently  join 
in  any  proceedings  which  might  be  construed  to  interfere 
with  it.  Accordingly,  the  conversation  of  that  day — on 
ivhicli  the  meeting  ended — was  principally  confined  to  the 


Note  to  page  22.  79 

bu^insRS  of  the  revival  of  the  corporation  for  the  relief  of 
the  widows  and  the  children  of  the  clergy  ;  which  had  been 
held  oat,  as  an  additional  object  of  the  interview.*  But 
before  the  clergy  parted,  it  was  agreed  to  procure  as  gene- 
ral a  meeting  as  might  be,  of  representatives  of  the  clergy 
and  of  the  laity  of  the  different  states,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,  on  the  6th  of  October  following.  The  gentlemen  of 
New- York  were  to  notify  the  brethren  eastward,  and  those 
of  Philadelphia  were  to  do  the  same  southward. 

The  author  remarked  at  this  meeting,  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  good  humour  which  prevailed  at  it,  the  more  north- 
ern clergymen  were  under  apprehensions  of  there  being  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  more  southern,  to  make 
material  deviation  from  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  England, 
in  the  article  of  church  government.  At  the  same  time  he 
wondered,  that  any  sensible  and  well-informed  persons 
should  overlook  the  propriety  of  accommodating  that  system, 
in  some  respects,  to  the  prevailing  sentiments  and  habits  of 
the  people  of  this  country,  now  become  an  independent  and 
combined  commonwealth. 

For  the  communication  with  the  court  of  Denmark,  as 
contained  in  the  Narrative,  see  Appendix,  No.  1. 

For  the  application  of  the  clergy  of  Connecticut  to  the 
archbishop  of  York,  the  English  primacy  having  become 
vacant,  and  the  successor  to  it  being  not  yet  known  in 
America,  see  Appendix,  No.  2. 


D.  Page  22.     Of  the  Meeting  in  New-York,  in   October, 

1784. 

There  were  present  from  Massachusetts,  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Parker;  from  Connecticut,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Marshall;  from 
New- York,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Provoost,  Beach,  B.  Moore, 
Bloomer,  Cutting,  T.  Moore,  and  the  Hon.  James  Duane, 
Marinas  Willet,  and  J.  Alsop,  Esquires;  from  New-Jersey, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Ogden,  and  John  De  Hart,  John  Chetwood, 
Esquires,  and  Mr.  Samuel  Spragg;  from  Pennsylvania,  the 
Rev.  Drs.  White  and  Magaw,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hutchins,  and 
Matthew  Clarkson,  Richard  Willing,  Samuel  Powell,  and 


•  This  corporation,  by  mutual  consent,  and  with  a  fair  partition  of  the  funds, 
has  siaco  resolved  itself  into  three  corporations,  under  charters  from  the  three 
states. 


80  Note  to  page  22. 

Richard  Peters,  Esquires ;  from  Delaware,  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
Thorne  and  Wharton,  and  Mr.  Robert  Clay;  from  Mary- 
land, the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith;  and  from  Virginia,  the  Rev.  Mr. 
GrilHth.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Smith  presided,  and  the  Rev.  B. 
Moore  was  secretary.  The  names  of  the  members  are  set 
down,  because  they  do  not  appear  on  the  subsequent  jour- 
nals ;  and  because  the  short  j)rinted  account  of  the  proceed- 
injjs  of  this  rneetini;:  was  in  verv  few  hands  at  the  time,  and 
is  probably  at  this  time  generally  destroyed  or  lost. 

The  ])resent  meeting,  like  that  in  May,  is  here  spoken  of 
as  a  voluntary  one,  and  not  an  authorized  convention,  be- 
cause there  were  no  authorities  from  the  churches  in  the 
several  states,  even  in  the  appointments  of  the  members, 
which  were  made  from  the  congregations,  to  which  they 
respectively  belonged;  except  of  Mr.  Parker,  from  Massa- 
chusetts, of  Mr.  Marshall,  from  Connecticut,  and  of  those 
who  attended  from  Pennsylvania:  even  from  these  states, 
there  was  no  further  authority,  than  to  deliberate  and  jiro- 
pose.  Accordingly,  the  acts  of  the  body  were  in  the  form 
of  recommendation  and  proposal. 

The  principles  of  ecclesiastical  union,  recommended  at 
the  meeting,  Se|)tember,  1784,  are  as  follows: — 

1st.  That  there  shall  be  a  general  convention  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

2d.  That  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  each  state,  send  de- 
puties to  the  convention,  consisting  of  clergy  and  laity. 

3d.  That  associated  congregations,  in  two  or  more  states, 
may  send  deputies  jointly. 

4th.  That  the  said  Church  shall  maintain  the  doctrines 
of  the  gospel,  as  now  held  by  the  Church  of  England,  and 
shall  adhere  to  the  liturgy  of  the  said  Church,  as  far  as  shall 
be  consistent  with  the  American  revolution,  and  the  con- 
stitutions of  the  respective  states. 

5th.  That  in  every  state  where  there  shall  be  a  bishop 
duly  consecrated  and  settled,  he  shall  be  considered  as  a 
member  of  the  convention  ex  officio. 

Cth.  That  the  clergy  and  laity,  assembled  in  convention, 
shall  deliberate  in  one  body,  but  shall  vote  separately;  and 
the  concurrence  of  both  shall  be  necessary  to  give  validity 
to  every  measure. 

7th.  That  the  first  meeting  of  the  convention  shall  be  at 
Philadelphia,  the  Tuesday  before  the  feast  of  St.  3Iichael 
next;  to  which  it  is  hoped,  and  earnestly  desired,  that  the 
Episcopal  churches  in  the  several  states  will  send  their 
clerical  and  lay  deputies,  duly  instructed  and  authorized  to 


Note  to  jyage  22.  §f. 

jtfocccd  on  the  necessary  business  herein  proposed  for  theif 
deliberation. 

The  above  resolves  were,  in  substance,  what  had  been 
determined  on  in  Pennsylvania,  in  May ;  and  after  having 
been  discussed  and  accommodated  in  a  committee,  were 
adopted  by  the  assembly. 

It  is  proper  to  remark,  that  although  a  clergyman  ap- 
peared at  this  meeting,  on  the  part  of  the  Churcli  in  Con- 
necticut, it  is  not  to  bethought,  that  there  was  an  obligation 
on  any  in  that  state  to  support  the  above  principles  ;  because 
Mr.  Marshall  read  to  the  assembly  a  paper,  which  expressed 
his  being  only  empowered  to  announce,  that  tlie  clergy  of 
Connecticut  had  taken  measures  for  the  obtaining  of  an 
Episcopate;  that  until  their  design,  in  that  particular, 
should  be  accomplished,  they  could  do  nothing  ;  but  that  as 
soon  as  they  should  have  succeeded,  they  would  come  for- 
ward, with  their  bishop,  for  the  doing  of  what  the  general 
interests  of  the  Church  might  require. 

With  this  exception,  the  principles  laid  down  appeared 
to  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting;  and  it  seemed  a  great 
matter  gained,  to  lay  what  promised  to  be  a  foundation  for 
the  continuing  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  leading 
points  of  her  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship;  yet  with 
such  an  accommodation  to  local  circumstances,  as  might  be 
expected  to  secure  the  concurrence  of  the  great  body  of  her 
members;  and  without  any  exterior  opposition,  to  threaten 
the  oversetting  of  the  scheme. 

At  the  present  day,  it  may  seem  to  have  been  of  little 
consequence,  to  gain  so  considerable  an  assent,  to  what  was 
determined  at  this  meeting.  But  at  the  time  in  question, 
when  the  crisis  presented  a  subject  of  deliberation  entirely 
new,  it  was  difficult  to  detach  it  in  the  minds  of  many,  from 
a  past  habitual  train  of  thinking.  Some  were  startled  at 
the  very  circumstance,  of  taking  the  stand  of  an  independent 
Church.  There  was  a  much  more  common  prejudice  against 
the  embracing  of  the  laity  in  a  scheme  of  ecclesiastical  legis- 
lation. Besides  these  things,  the  confessed  necessity  of 
accommodating  the  service  to  the  newly  established  civil 
constitution  of  the  country,  naturally  awakened  apprehen- 
sions of  unlimited  licence.  Hence  the  restriction  to  the 
English  liturgy,  except  in  accommodation  to  the  revolution; 
which  restriction  was  not  acquiesced  in,  as  will  be  seen. 


11 


82  Note  to  page  23. 

E.  Page  23.  Of  Proceedings  in  sundry  States,  previous  to 
the  Meetings  in  1784,  at  New-Brunswick  and  at  New- 
York. 

As  this  convention  acted  by  delegation,  an  account  of  the 

said  proceedings  seems  to  form  a  part  of  the  present  work. 

The  principles  agreed  on,  at  the  said  meetings,  were 

analogous  to  those  in  the  several  states;  with  tiie  excej)tion 

of  what  was  done  by  the  clergy,  individually,  in  Connecticut. 

In  Massachusetts  there  was  held  a  meeting  of  the  clergy 

at  Boston,  September  8,  1784.     In  a  letter  received  by  the 

author  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Parker,  at  the  time,  it  appears, 

that  the  principal  business  of  this  meeting  was  the  passing 

of  the  following  resolves,  which  have  evidently  an  allusion 

to  what  had  been  done  in   Philadelphia  in  the   preceding 

May,    and  communicated   to   Mr.   Parker.     The   articles 

a^-reed  on  in  Philadelphia  will  appear  lower  down. 

Those  of  Boston  are, 

1st,  That  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  is,  and  ought  to  be,  independent  of  all  foreign 
authority,  ecclesiastical  and  civil.  But  it  is  the  opinion  of 
this  convention,  that  this  independence  be  not  construed  or 
taken  in  so  rigorous  a  sense,  as  to  exclude  the  churches  in 
America,  separately  or  collectively,  from  applying  for  and 
obtaining  from  some  regular  Episcopal  foreign  power,  an 
American  Episcopate. 

2dly,  That  the  Episcopal  Church  in  these  states  hath,  and 
ought  to  have,  in  common  with  all  other  religious  societies, 
full  and  exclusive  powers  to  regulate  the  concerns  of  its 
own  communion. 

3dly,  That  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  be  maintained,  as 
row  professed  by  the  Church  of  England  ;  and  uniformity 
of  worship  be  continued,  as  near  as  may  be,  to  the  liturgy 
of  the  said  Church. 

4thly,  That  the  succession  of  the  ministry  be  agreeable 
to  the  usage  which  recpiireth  the  three  orders,  of  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons  ;  that  the  rights  and  powers  of  the 
same  be  respectively  ascertained;  and  that  they  be  exer- 
cised according  to  reasonable  laws,  to  be  duly  made. 

5thly,  That  the  power  of  making  canons  and  laws  bo 
vested  solely  in  a  representative  body  of  the  clergy  and  the 
laity  conjointly  ;  in  which  body,  the  laity  ought  not  to  ex- 
ceed, or  their  votes  be  more  in  number,  than  those  of  the 
clergy. 


Note  to  page  23.  83 

6thly,  That  no  power  be  delegated  to  a  general  ecclesi- 
astical government,  except  such  as  cannot  conveniently  be 
exercised  by  the  clergy  and  vestries,  in  their  respective 
congregations. 

The  only  points  in  which  the  above  differ  from  those 
which  will  be  recorded  as  laid  down  in  Philadelpliia,  are, 
that  in  the  former  they  provide  for  an  application  to  a 
foreign  quarter;  wliich  was  agreeable  to  intentions  enter- 
tained in  framing  the  latter,  although  not  expressed  ;  and 
that  in  the  fifth  article  of  the  former  it  is  specified,  that  the 
clergy  and  the  laity  ought  to  have  an  equal  vote.  This 
matter  was  afterward  settled  to  mutual  satisfaction,  in  the 
meeting  at  New-York.  It  is  here  taken  notice  of,  because 
there  was  afterward  manifested  a  disposition  in  Massa- 
chusetts, to  depart  from  the  principles  agreed  on  ;  that  the 
clergy  of  that  state,  instead  of  sending  a  deputation  to  Phi- 
ladel[)hia  in  September,  1785,  held  a  meeting  of  their  own, 
about  the  same  time,  in  Boston,  in  which  they  made  con- 
siderable alterations  in  the  liturgy.  Although  they  doubt- 
less acted  agreeably  to  what  seemed  best  to  them  at  the 
different  times;  yet  this  fluctuation  of  counsels  is  recorded, 
lest  the  latter  measure,  contemplated  singly,  should  seem 
to  do  away  the  weight  of  the  principles  antecedently  estab- 
lished. 

In  Connecticut  there  was  a  meeting  of  the  clergy,  in 
March,  1783,  the  principal  measure  of  which,  was  the  re- 
commending of  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury  tothe  English  bishops 
for  consecration.  This  was  an  act  of  the  clergy  generally 
in  that  state,  and  of  a  few  in  New- York ;  and  is  rather  to 
be  considered  as  done  by  them  in  their  individual  capacities, 
than  as  a  regular  ecclesiastical  proceeding  ;  because,  as  yet, 
there  had  not  been  any  organized  assembly,  who  could 
claim  the  power  of  acting  for  the  Church  in  consequence  of 
either  the  express  or  the  implied  consent  of  the  body  of 
Episcopalians.  They  who  consider  the  bishop  of  a  diocese 
as  related  to  its  clergy  alone,  may  differ  from  the  author  in 
this  remark.  But  although  he  has  heard  such  an  opinion 
advanced  in  conversation,  and  even  remembers  it  to  have 
been  sometimes  published  in  the  former  controversies  con- 
cerning American  Episcopacy;  yet  it  is  so  evidently  con- 
trary to  the  system  as  gathered  from  scripture  and  primi- 
tive antiquity,  that  he  does  not  suppose  it  will  be  maintained 
in  deliberate  argument.  His  recording  of  this  circumstance 
is  not  designed,  either  in  disparagement  of  the  personal 
character  of  Bishop  Seabury,  or  as  doubting  of  the  appro- 


Bi  Note  to  page  23. 

bation  of  the  measure  by  the  whole  Church,  in  uhicli  ho 
has  since  ])resided.  In  regard  to  the  former,  the  author 
entertained  for  that  bishop  much  affection  and  respect,  the 
result  of  what  was  afterwards  perceived  in  person,  of  his 
good  sense  and  Christian  disposition.  As  to  the  latter,  it 
is  believed  from  what  has  been  since  learned,  that  no  man 
could  have  been  more  acceptable,  independently  on  the  in- 
clination said  to  have  been  afterward  manifested,  of  leaving 
all  ecclesiastical  matters  to  the  clergy :  which  was  done  for 
a  while,  although  the  laity  have  been  since  introduced  into 
the  convention,  as  in  the  other  states.  But  the  subject  is 
here  noticed,  as  one  cause  accounting  for  the  failure  of  the 
application  in  England ;  a  sentiment  confirmed  by  subse- 
quent information,  as  will  appear  in  its  proper  place. 

From  letters  in  possession  of  the  author,  he  finds,  that  in 
Connecticut,  the  idea  of  lay  representation  in  ecclesiastical 
legislation,  became  associated  with  that  of  the  trial  and  the 
degradation  of  clergymen  by  the  same  authority.  That 
there  is  no  such  necessary  association,  is  evident  in  the 
English  system. 

In  Pennsylvania  there  was  a  convention  of  the  Church, 
which  began  on  the  24th  of  May,  1784.  The  steps  leading 
to  this  convention  were  originated  by  the  author,  in  the 
vestry  of  the  churches  under  his  parochial  care,  in  conse- 
quence of  a  ])revious  agreement  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Magaw, 
the  rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Black  well, 
assistant  minister  to  the  author.  The  said  vestry  opened 
a  communication  on  the  subject,  with  the  vestry  of  St. 
Paul's  Church,  and  by  agreement  of  these  two  bodies,  in 
conjunction  with  their  clergy,  notices  were  given,  and  suit- 
able measures  were  taken,  for  the  obtaining  of  the  meeting 
of  the  convention. 

The  result  of  their  deliberations  was  the  establishing  of 
the  following  principles,  as  a  foundation  for  the  future 
forming  of  an  ecclesiastical  body  for  the  Church  at  large. 

1st,  That  the  Episcopal  Church  in  these  states  is,  and 
ought  to  be,  independent  of  all  foreign  authority,  ecclesias- 
tical or  civil. 

2dly,  That  it  hath,  and  ought  to  have,  in  common  with 
all  other  religious  societies,  full  and  exclusive  powers  to 
regulate  the  concerns  of  its  own  communion. 

3dly,  That  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  be  maintained  as 
now  professed  by  the  Church  of  England,  and  uniibrmity  of 
worship  continued,  as  near  as  may  be,  to  the  liturgy  of  the 
said  Church, 


Note  to  j)agc  23.  85 

4tlily,  That  tlie  succession  of  the  ministry  be  nirrecablo 
to  the  usage  which  requireth  the  three  orders,  of  "bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons ;  that  the  rights  and  powers  of  the 
same,  respectively,  be  ascertained,  and  that  they  be  exer- 
cised according  to  reasonable  laws,  to  be  duly  made. 

5thly,  That  to  make  canons  or  laws,  there  be  no  other 
authority  than  that  of  a  representative  body  of  the  clergy 
and  laity  conjointly. 

Gthly,  That  no  powers  be  delegated  to  a  general  eccle- 
siastical government,  except  such  as  cannot  conveniently 
be  exercised  by  the  clergy  and  laity,  in  their  respective 
congreirations.* 


The  steps  preparatory  to  the  resolves  were  as  follow: — they  were  the  first 
advances  towards  a  general  orguuizatioii,  and  are  copied  from  the  original  journal 
in  possession. 

.     ,  FhUiuhlpltin,  March  29//;,  1784. 

At  the  house  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  rector  of  Christ  Church  and  St.  Peter^s. 

In  consequence  of  appointments  made  by  the  vestry  of  Christ  Church  and  St 
Peter's,  as  llilloweth  : — 

"  The  rector  mentioned  to  the  ve.'^try,  that  he  lately  had  a  conversation  with  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Magaw,  on  the  subject  of  appointing  committees  from  the  vestries  of 
their  respective  churches,  to  confer  with  the  clergy  of  the  said  churches,  on  the 
subject  of  forming  a  representative  body  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  state, 
and  wished  to  have  the  sense  of  the  vestry  thereon.  After  some  consideration,  the 
vestry  agreed  to  appoint  Matthew  Clarkson  and  William  Pollard  for  Christ 
Chiu-ch,  and  Dr.  Clarkson  and  John  Chaloner  for  St.  Peter's ;"  and  by  the  vestry 
of  St.  Paul's  Church,  as  followeth :— "  A  copy  of  the  minute  of  the  vestry  of 
Christ  Church  and  St.  Peter'.s,  of  the  13th  of  November  last,  was,  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Magaw,  laid  before  this  vestry,  and  is  as  follows,  (here  follows  the  above 
minute  )  "The  above  minute  being  taken  into  consideration,  and  this  vestry 
concurring  in  opinion  thereon,  unanimously  appointed  Lambert  Wihner  and 
Plnnket  Fleeson,  Esquires,  on  the  part  of  this  church,  to  carry  into  execution  the 
good  inteiillons  of  the  said  mhuite." 

The  clergy,  together  with  the  gentlemen  named  in  the  said  appointments 
(except  Matthew  Clarkson,  Esq,  and  Dr.  Clarkson,  who  were  detained  by  sick- 
ness,) assembled  at  the  time  and  place  above  mentioned. 

The  body  thus  assembled,  having  taken  into  consideration  the  necessity  of 
speedily  adopting  measures  for  the  forming  of  a  plan  of  ecclesiastical  government 
for  the  Episcopal  Church,  were  of  opinion,  that  a  subject  of  snch  importance 
ought  to  be  taken  up,  if  possible,  with  the  concuiTence  oi'the  Episcopalians  of  the 
United  States  in  general.  They,  therefore,  resolved  to  ask  a  conference  with 
such  members  of  the  Episcopal  congregations  of  the  counties  in  this  state  as  were 
then  in  town  ;  and  the  clergy  present  undertook  to  converse  with  such  persons  as 
they  could  find  of  the  above  description,  and  to  request  their  meeting  the  body  ut 
Christ  Church,  on  Wednesday  evening  at  seven  o'clock. 

_,,       ,  ,  Claist  Church,  March  31  sf. 

llie  clergy  and  the  two  committees  assembled,  and  elected  Dr.  White  their 
chairman. 

The  clergy  reported,  that  agreeably  to  their  promise,  they  had  spoken  to  several 
gentlemen,  who  readily  consented  to  the  conference  proposed. 

The  meeting  continued  for  some  time,  when  it  was  signified  to  them,  that 
several  gentlemen  who  had  designed  to  attend,  were  detained  by  the  unexpected 
sitting  of  the  honourable  House  of  Assembly,  they  being  meml)ers  of  that  house. 
The  Hon.  James  Read,  Esq.  attended,  according  to  desire.     After  some  conver- 


86  Note  to  page  23. 

As  this  was  the  first  ecclesiastical  assembly  in  any  of  the 
states,  consisting  partly  of  lay  members,  and  as  the  author 
was  considered  at  the  time  to  be  the  proposer  of  the  mea- 
sure, the  principle  of  it  having  been  advocated,  about  a 
year  before,  in  a  pamphlet  known  to  be  his,  he  thinks  it 
proper  to  give,  in  this  place,  a  short  statement  of  his  rea- 
sons, in  its  favour. 

From  what  he  has  read  of  primitive  usage,  he  thinks  it 
evident,  that  in  very  early  times,  when  every  church,  that 
is,  the  Christian  people  in  every  city  and  convenient  dis- 
trict round  it,  was  an  ecclesiastical  commonwealth,  with  all 
the  necessary  powers  of  self  government,  the  body  of  the 
people  had  a  considerable  share  in  its  determinations.  He 
is  not  setting  up  Lord  King's  plea,  of  the  people's  having 
been  a  constituent  part  of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  synods, 
for  which  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  ground ;  the  pas- 
sages quoted  to  the  effect  by  his  lordship  proving  no  more 
than  that  some  of  the  laity  were  occasionally  present  at  the 
deliberations.  But  there  is  here  spoken  of  the  practice 
which  was  prevalent  before  the  introduction  of  ecclesias- 
tical synods,  of  the  holding  of  which  there  is  little  or  no 
evidence,  until  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The 
same  sanction  which  the  people  gave  originally  in  a  body, 
they  might  lawfully  give  by  representation.  In  reference 
to  very  ancient  practice,  it  would  be  an  omission  not  to  take 
notice  of  the  council  of  Jerusalem,   mentioned  in  the  15th 


sation  on  the  business  of  this  meeting,  it  was  resolved,  that  a  circular  letter  be 
addressed  to  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  tlie  respective  Episcopal  congregations 
in  the  state,  and  that  the  same  be  as  follows,  viz. — 

Gentlemen, 

The  Episcopal  clergy  in  this  city,  together  with  committees  appointed  by  the 
vestry  of  Christ  Church  and  St.  Peter's,  and  another  connnittee  appointed  by  the 
vestry  of  St.  Paul's  Chnrch,  in  the  same  city,  for  the  purpose  of  proposing  a  plan 
of  ecclesiastical  goveriunent,  being  now  assembled,  are  of  opinion,  that  a  snbject 
of  such  importance  ought  to  be  taken  up,  if  possible,  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
Episcopalians  of  the  United  States  in  general.  They  have  therefore  resolved,  as 
preparatory  to  a  general  consultation,  to  retjuest  the  church-wardens  and  vestry- 
men of  each  Episcopal  congregation  in  the  stale,  to  delegate  one  or  more  of  their 
body  to  assist  at  a  meeting  to  be  held  in  this  city  on  Monday,  the  24th  day  of  May 
next;  and  such  clergymen  as  have  parochial  cure  in  the  said  congregations  to 
attend  the  meeting,  which  they  hope  will  contain  a  full  representation  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  stale.  The  above  resolve,  gentlemen,  the  first  step  in 
their  proceedings,  they  now  respectfully  and  ati'ectionalely  communicate  to  you, 
Signed,  in  behalf  of  the  body  now  assembled, 

WM.  WHITE,  Chairman. 

In  consequence  of  the  above  circular,  the  contemplated  meeting  was  held  in 
Christ  Church,  on  the  24th  of  May,  17H4.  The  minutes  of  the  meeting  are  in 
the  printed  journals  of  the  Church  in  Pennsylvania.  The  principal  result  was 
communicated,  a  lew  days  after,  to  the  meeting  ia  Kew-Brunswick. 


Note  to  page  23.  87 

chapter  of  the  Acts.  That  the  people  were  concerned  in 
the  transactions  of  that  body,  is  granted  generally  by  Epis- 
copalian divines.  Something  has  been  said,  indeed,  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  authoritative  act  of  the  apostles  and 
the  concurring  act  of  the  lay  brethren  :  and  Archbishop 
Potter,  in  support  of  this  distinction,  corrects  the  common 
translation,  on  the  authority  of  some  ancient  manuscripts, 
reading  (Acts  xv.  23,)  "  elders  brethren  :"  a  similar  ex- 
pression, he  thinks,  to  "  men  brethren,"  in  chapter  ii.  29; 
where  the  and  is  evidently  an  interlopation,  to  suit  the  idiom 
of  the  English  language.  It  does  not  appear,  that  our  best 
commentators,  either  before  or  since  the  time  of  Archbishop 
Potter,  have  followed  his  reading.  Mills  prefers,  and 
Griesbach  rejects  it.  The  passage,  even  with  the  correc- 
tions, amounts  to  what  is  pleaded  for — the  obtaining  of  the 
consent  of  the  laity  ;  which  must  have  accompanied  the  de- 
cree of  Jerusalem  ;  nothing  less  being  included  in  the  term 
"  muhitude,"  who  are  said  to  have  "  kept  silence,"  and  in 
that  of  "  the  whole  church,"  of  whom,  as  well  as  of  the 
apostles  and  elders,  it  is  said,  that  "  it  pleased"  them  to 
institute  tiie  recorded  mission.  On  no  other  principle  than 
that  here  affirmed,  can  there  be  accounted  for  many  par- 
ticulars introduced  in  the  apostolic  epistles.  The  matters 
referred  to  are  subjects  which,  on  the  contrary  supposition, 
were  exclusively  within  the  province  of  the  clergy,  and  not 
to  be  acted  on  by  the  churches,  to  whom  the  epistles  are 
respectively  addressed. 

If  then  the  matter  pleaded  for  be  lawful,  the  question  of 
the  propriety  of  adopting  it  ought  to  be  determined  by  ex- 
pediency. That  it  was  expedient,  is  judged,  1st,  from  its 
being  a  natural  consequence  of  the  principle  of  following 
the  Church  of  England  in  all  the  leading  points  of  her 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship.  We  could  not,  in  any 
other  way,  have  had  a  substitute  for  the  parliamentary 
sanction  to  legislative  acts  of  power.  Such  a  sanction  is 
pleaded  for  by  Mr.  Hooker  and  others,  as  rendered  proper 
by  the  reason  of  the  thing,  and  the  principles  of  the  British 
constitution.  On  this  very  ground,  the  courts  of  law  of  that 
country  have  always  refused  to  recognise  the  canons  of 
1603,  as  binding  over  the  laity.  So  far  as  they  are  a  de- 
claration of  the  ancient  canon  law  of  the  realm,  they  are 
held  to  be  binding,  like  the  common  law,  on  the  ground  of 
immemorial  custom :  but  such  matters  as  rest  only  on  the 
determinations  of  the  convocation,  have  been  continually 
declared,  by  solemn  judgnnents  of  the  courts,  to  be  not  bind- 


88  Note  to  page  23. 

inn^  on  the  laity,  for  the  express  reason,  that  they  were  not 
represented  in  the  convocation. — 2clly,  From  a  doubt  of  our 
being  able  to  carry  Episcopacy  in  any  other  way.  The 
prejudices  of  even  some  of  the  members  of  our  own  Church 
against  the  name,  and  much  more  against  the  office,  of 
bishop;  and,  added  to  this,  the  outcry  which  had  been 
made  on  former  occasions,  by  persons  of  other  denomina- 
tions, that  not  spiritual  powers  only,  but  civil  also,  were  in- 
tended, rendered  it  very  ujicertain  whether  we  could  accom- 
plish the  design,  without  engaging  in  the  measure  such  a 
description  of  gentlemen  as  might  give  it  weight,  and  show 
to  the  world  that  nothing  inimical  either  to  civil  or  to  reli- 
gious rights  was  in  contemplation. — 3dly,  Without  the  order 
of  laity  permanently  making  a  part  of  our  assemblies,  it  were 
much  to  be  apprehended,  that  the  laymen  would  never  be 
brought  to  submit  to  any  of  our  ecclesiastical  laws,  in  such 
points  as  might  affect  the  interests  or  the  convenience  of 
any  of  them,  which,  it  is  evident,  might  happen  in  very 
many  cases:  for  instance,  to  mention  two  of  the  most  im- 
portant— admission  to  the  communion,  and  exclusion  from 
it.  And  they  would  have  the  principles  and  the  practice  of 
England  to  plead  in  their  favour,  as  already  stated. 

In  order  to  show  that  the  preceding  sentiments  are  not 
uncommon  in  the  Church  of  England,  it  will  be  to  the  pur- 
pose to  give  the  following  extract  from  Bishop  Warburton'g 
"  Alliance  of  Church  and  State,"  p.  197 — "  There  was  no 
absurdity  in  that  custom,  which  continued  during  the  Saxon 
government,  and  some  time  after,  which  admitted  the  laity 
into  ecclesiastical  synods  ;  there  appearing  to  be  much  the 
same  reasons  for  laymen's  sitting  in  convocation,  as  for 
churchmen  sitting  in  parliament."  On  the  question  to 
which  this  relates,  it  will  be  pertinent  to  remark,  that  since, 
according  to  what  is  held  by  all  Protestants,  neither  clergy 
nor  laity  can  add  to  the  truths  of  scripture,  whatever  either 
or  both  of  them  may  ordain,  must  fall  under  the  head  of 
discipline. 

To  what  extent  lay-interference  was  carried  in  the  Eng- 
lish reformation,  may  be  learned  from  the  following  accounts 
of  the  historian  Fuller.  Speaking  of  the  convocation  of  1552, 
under  Edward  VI.  he  says — "  The  true  reason,  why  the  king 
would  not  intrust  the  diffusive  body  of  the  convocation  with 
a  power  to  meddle  with  matters  of  religion,  was  a  just  jea- 
lousie  which  he  had  of  the  ill  affection  of  the  major  part 
thereof;  who,  under  the  fair  rinde  of  Protestant  profession, 
had  the  rotten  core  of  Romish  superstition.     It  was  there- 


Note  to  page  23.  S9 

fore  conceived  safer  for  the  king-,  to  relie  on  the  ability  and 
fidelity  of  some  select  confidents,  cordiall  to  the  cause  of 
religion,  than  to  adventure  the  same  to  be  discussed  and 
decided  by  a  suspitious  convocation.  However,  this  convo- 
cation is  entitled  the  parent  of  those  articles  of  religion  (42 
in  number,)  which  are  printed  with  this  preface  *  Articuli 
de  quibus  in  Synodo  Londinensi  Anno  Domini  1552,  inter 
Episcopos  et  alios  eruditos  viros  convenerat.'  " 

Afterward,  speaking  of  Poinet's  Catechism,  Fuller  says 
— "  Very  few  in  the  convocation  ever  saw  it.  But  these 
had  formerly  (it  seems)  passed  over  their  power  (1  should 
be  thankful!  to  him  who  would  produce  the  originall  instru- 
ment thereof)  to  the  select  divines  appointed  by  the  king-, 
in  which  sense,  they  maybe  said  to  have  done  it  themselves 
by  their  delegates,  to  whom  they  had  deputed  their  autho- 
rity. A  case  not  so  clear,  but  that  it  occasioned  a  cavill  at 
the  next  convocation,  in  the  first  of  Queen  Mary,  when  the 
papists,  therein  assembled,  renounced  the  legality  of  any 
such  former  transactions." 

However  cautiously  Fuller  speaks,  it  is  evident  he  had 
no  faith  in  the  transmission  of  the  power  of  the  convocation 
to  the  delegates  appointed  by  the  king.  If  the  fact  could 
be  established,  there  would  remain  the  question  of  the  right 
to  communicate,  without  a  check,  a  power  exclusively  vested 
in  the  whole  clerical  order,  as  this  is  said  to  be.  In  the 
controversy  between  the  Romanists  and  the  Protestants, 
concerning  the  sanction  to  the  principle  of  persecution  by 
the  fourth  Lateran  Council,  in  1225,  the  defence  made  is, 
that  the  pope  read  the  decrees  as  prepared  by  himself,  and 
that  they  were  adopted  by  the  council  without  discussion. 
It  is  an  insufficient  plea,  but  more  specious  than  that  of  an 
authority  claimed  for  points  not  only  not  discussed,  but  not 
heard,  and  resting  on  a  retrospect  to  the  alleged  delegation 
of  power,  if  there  should  exist  the  proof  of  it  unknown  to 
Fuller.  It  is  right  to  contend  for  the  due  weight  of  the 
clergy  in  ecclesiastical  proceedings,  but  when  the  matter  is 
carried  so  far,  as  that  without  their  permission,  there  shall 
not  be  the  rejection  of  corruptions  in  contrariety  to  the 
records  on  which  their  commission  rests,  the  claim  is  extra- 
vagant, and  tends  to  the  counteracting  evil,  of  a  denial  of 
the  real  rights  of  their  order. 

The  connexion  of  this  with  a  pamphlet  published  in  the 
summer  of  1783,  by  the  author,  although  without  his  name, 
in  which  pamphlet  was  the  first  public  suggestion,  tending 
to  the  introduction  of  the  laity  into  our  ecclesiastical  coun- 

12 


JX)  Note  to  page  23. 

oils,   induces  the  takhii?  of  this  opportunity  of  declaring', 
that,  after  the  years  which  have  passed,  there  does  not  ap- 
pear  to  his  mind  any  cause  to  rotract  the  leading  sentinients^ 
of  that  perforniance.     Tiie  necessity  urged  in  it  ceased  to 
exist,  within  a  shn^rt  time  after  the  publication,  and  there- 
fore,  all  thoughts  of  the  measure  intended  to  have  been 
founded  on  it,  were  laid  aside.    But  had  Great-lJritain  drop- 
ped the  war,  yet  continued  her  claims,  as  many  judicious  per- 
sons expected  would  be  the  case,  and  as  had  happened  for- 
merly,   between  Spain  and  the  United  Netherlands,  it  is 
difficult  to  perceive  how  any  thing  materially  different  from 
what  is  recommended  in  that  pamphlet,  conld  have  continued 
us,  as  a  religious  society,  in  existence.*     Soon  after  the 
publication  of  the  pamphlet,  the  author  found  himself  in 
danger  of  being  involved  in  a  dispute  with  the  clergy  of 
Connecticut,  in  the  name  of  whom,  assembled  in  conven- 
tion, their  secretary,  the  Rev.  Abraham  Jarvis,  addressed 
a  letter,  complaining  of  the  performance,  although  doubtless 
mistaking  the  object  of  it.     The  letter  was  answered — it  is 
hoped,  in  a  friendly  manner — and  there  the  matter  ended. 
The  same  convention,  in  the  address  sent  by  them  to  the 
archbishop  of  York,  alluded  to  the  pamphlet,  as  evidence 
of  a  design  entertained  to  set  up  an  Episcopacy,  on  the 
ground  of  presbyterial  and  lay  authority.     No  personal  ani- 
mosity  becan>e   the   result  of  this   misapprehension  ;    and 
other  events  have  manifested  consent  in  all  matters  essen- 
tial to  ecclesiastical  discipline.     Before  the  author's  subse- 
quent visit  to  England,  he  knew  that  his  pamphlet  had  been 
in  the  hands  of  the  archbishop — not  the  prelate  to  whom  the 
convention  had  addressed  their  letter — of  York,  the  chair 
of  Canterbury  being  recently  vacated  by  the  decease  of  Dr. 
Cornwallis,  and  the  appointment  of  his  successor  being  not 
yet  known  in  America.     The  latter,  Archbishop  Moore,  did 
not  express  any  dissatisfaction  with  the  pamphlet,  or  with 
the  author  on  its  account,  nor  has  any  other  English  ])relate, 
so  far  as  is  known  to  him.     It  had  been  enclosed  to  Mr. 
Adams,  the  American  minister,  when  there  was  officially 
sent  to  him  the  address  of  the  convention  of  1785,  to  the 

*  It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  under  such  circumstances,  the  non-juring 
bishops  of  Scotland,  labouring  under  penal  laws,  not  executed  indeed,  but  t) 
which  they  were  obnoxious,  and  studying  to  live  in  quiet  submission  to  an 
authority  which  liiey  did  not  acknowledge,  would  have  provoked  it  by  the  mea- 
sure in  (jueslion.  It  is  equally  iniprol)able,  that  any  kingdom,  the  establishment 
of  which  was  Protestant  and  Kpiscopalian,  would  have  provoked  Great-Britiau 
by  an  intercourse  with  those  whom  she  would  have  considered  as  her  subjects  ia 
rebcUiou. 


Note  to  page  23.  Wl. 

archbishops  and  bishops  of  England,  and  was  by  him  de- 
livered to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury.* 

On  the  communication  from  Connecticut,  it  will  not  be 
cfFensive  at  the  present  day,  to  make  the  following  remarks. 

There  pervades  it  the  defect,  of  not  distinguishing  be- 
tween the  then  state  of  public  concerns,  and  as  they  stood 
when  the  pamphlet  was  published.  Nearly  a  year,  and  the 
acknowledgment  of  independence  had  intervened.  The 
intimation  in  the  letter,  that  the  author  of  the  pamphlet  re- 
garded Episcopacy  no  further  than  that  for  the  satisfying  of 
the  people,  the  prospect  was  to  be  held  out  of  obtaining  it 
at  a  future  time,  would  have  been  wounding  to  his  feehngs, 
had  his  brethren  of  Connecticut  possessed  a  knowledge  of 
him.  They  were,  at  titat  time,  strangers  to  one  another. 
The  intimated  suspicion  was  then  resolved,  and  is  now  re- 
solved by  him  on  whom  it  fell,  into  a  difference  of  appre- 
hension as  to  the  means  of  accomplishing  the  same  end. 

The  writer  of  the  pamphlet,  although  aware  that  there 
are  occasions  of  defending  Episcopacy  against  opposite  pre- 
tensions, entertained  the  opinion,  that  the  most  improper  is 
when  the  subject  under  discussion  concerned  the  Episcopal 
Church  alone.  The  members  of  this  Church  were  supposed 
to  have  been  satisfied  with  the  principles  on  which  they  had 
acted,  and  which  they  still  professed.  To  have  involved 
the  merits  of  those  principles  with  the  object  in  view,  would 
have  given  a  plausible  pretence  for  the  interference  of  those 
who  might  be  disposed  to  defeat  the  measure  in  contem- 
plation. 

It  is  diflicult,  in  avoiding  one  extreme,  not  to  fall  under 


*  The  pamphlet,  written  at  a  time  when  there  were  few  Episcopalian  piilpita 
in  the  United  Stcitesfrom  wliich  the  sound  of  the  Gospel  w;is  heard,  was  to  the 
following  effect : — 

It  proposed  the  combining  of  the  clergy  and  of  representatives  of  the  congrega- 
tions, in  convenient  districts,  with  a  representative  body  of  the  whole,  nearly  on 
the  plan  subsequently  adopted.  This  ecciesiastical  representative  was  to  make  a 
declaration  approving  of  Episcopacy,  and  professing  a  determination  to  possess 
the  succession  when  it  could  be  obtained;  but  they  were  to  carry  the  plan  into 
immediate  act. 

The  expedient  was  sustained  by  the  plea  of  necessity,  and  by  opinions  of 
various  authors  of  the  Church  of  England,  acknowledging  a  valid  ministry  under 
circumstances  sii'iilar  to  those  of  the  existing  case,  aldiough  less  imperious.  It 
was  also  alleged,  that  as  much  as  what  was  now  pre  posed  might  be  seen  to  be 
implied,  in  the  ground  on  which  Episcopacy  rests  in  tk(?  institutions  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  in  the  defences  of  it  by  her  most  celebrated  divines.  Although 
reference  was  had  to  the  position  of  the  Church,  that  "  from  the  apostles'  time, 
there  have  been  in  the  Gliurch  of  Christ,  the  three  orders,  of  bishops,  priests,  aiid 
deacons;"  nothing  was  said  in  proof  of  the  fact,  because  it  was  not  questioned  in 
this  Church,  and  because  argument  to  the  eiVect  would  have  been  indiscreet,  as 
>o  be  staled  above. 


92  }foie  to  page  23. 

the  appearance  of  its  opposite.  Many  years  after  tlie  pub- 
lication of  the  pamphlet,  a  clergyman  of  standing  in  an  anti- 
Episcopalian  society,  alleged  some  passages  of  the  perform- 
ance as  sustaining  ordination  not  Episcopal.  But  he  iiad 
the  candour  publicly  to  acknowledge  his  mistake,  when  it 
was  pointed  out  to  him. 

For  the  communication  from  the  clergy  of  Connecticut, 
see  Appendix,  No.  3. 

It  is  no  slight  instance  of  the  proneness  to  govern  too 
much,  and  of  the  peculiar  liability  to  the  error  in  a  collective 
body,  that  during  the  war  of  the  revolution,  the  legislature 
of  Maryland,  although  consisting  of  men  of  various  denomi- 
nations, took  up  the  subject  of  organizing  the  Church,  and 
particularly  of  appointing  ordainers  to  the  ministry.  A 
clergyman  of  weight  of  character — the  Rev.  Samuel  Keene 
— actuated  by  laudable  ardour,  repaired  to  Annapolis,  was 
heard  before  the  house,  and  was  considered  as  principally 
influential  in  producing  an  abandonment  of  the  design. 
Perhaps  the  hasty  enterprize  was  over-ruled  to  good ;  for 
almost  as  soon  as  there  became  known  the  happy  event  of 
peace,  there  were  held  two  conventions  in  IMaryland ;  the 
first,  on  the  13th  of  August,  1783,  and  the  other,  on  the 
22d  of  June,  1784.  The  proceedings  of  these  conventions, 
with^measures  taken  at  other  times  and  in  other  matters  by 
the  clergy  of  that  state,  were  chiefly  originated  and  con- 
ducted by  the  Rev.  Dr,  Smith,  who,  in  his  residence  there, 
during  the  seizure  of  the  charter  rights  of  the  college  of 
Philadelphia,  exerted  his  excellent  talents  in  these  and  in 
other  public  works. 

The  principal  business  of  the  convention  in  August,  1783, 
was  the  making  of"  A  declaration  of  certain  fundamental 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
Maryland,"  consisting  of  the  following  articles: — 

1st.  We  consider  it  as  the  undoubted  right  of  the  said 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  common  with  other  Chris- 
tian churches  under  the  American  revolution,  to  complete 
and  preserve  herself  as  an  entire  Church,  agreeably  to  her 
ancient  usages  and  professions;  and  to  have  a  full  enjoy- 
ment and  free  exercise  of  those  purely  spiritual  powers, 
which  are  essential  to  the  being  of  every  Church  or  congre- 
gation of  the  faithful,  and  which,  being  derived  from  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  are  to  be  maintained  indejiendent  of  every 
foreign  or  other  jurisdiction,  so  far  as  may  be  consistent 
*vith  the  civil  rights  of  society. 

2d.  That  over  since  the  reformation,  it  hath  been  the 


JVo^6'  to  i)age  23.  93 

received  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  which  we  arc  members, 
(and  which,  by  the  constitution  of  this  state,  is  entitled  to  a 
perpetual  enjoyment  of  certain  property  and  rights,  under 
the  denomination  of  the  Church  of  England,)  "  That  there 
be  three  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons,"  and  that  an  Episcopal  ordination  and 
commission  are  necessary  to  the  valid  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  and  the  due  exercise  of  the  ministerial  function 
in  the  said  Church. 

3d.  That  without  calling  in  question  the  rights,  modes, 
and  forms,  of  any  other  Christian  Churches  or  societies,  or 
wishing  the  least  contest  with  them  on  that  subject,  we  con- 
sider and  declare  it  to  be  an  essential  right  of  the  said 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  to  have  and  enjoy  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  said  three  orders  of  ministers  for  ever,  so 
far  as  concerns  matters  purely  spiritual,  and  that  no  per- 
sons, in  the  character  of  ministers,  except  such  as  are  in 
the  communion  of  the  said  Church,  and  duly  called  to  the 
ministry  by  regular  Episcopal  ordination,  can  or  ought  to 
be  admitted  into,  or  enjoy,  any  of  the  churches,  chapels, 
glebes,  or  other  property,  formerly  belonging  to  the  Church 
of  England  in  this  state,  and  which,  by  the  constitution  and 
form  of  government,  is  secured  to  the  said  Church  for  ever, 
by  whatsoever  name  she,  the  said  Church,  or  her  superior 
order  of  ministers,  may  in  future  be  denominated. 

4th.  That  as  it  is  the  right,  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the 
said  Church,  when  duly  organized,  constituted,  and  repre- 
sented in  a  synod  or  convention  of  the  different  orders  of 
her  ministers  and  people,  to  revise  her  liturgy,  forms  ot 
prayer,  and  public  worship,  in  order  to  adapt  the  same  to 
the  late  revolution,  and  other  local  circumstances  of  Ame- 
rica; which,  it  is  humbly  conceived,  will  and  may  be  done, 
without  any  other  or  farther  departure  from  the  venerable 
order  and  beautiful  forms  of  worship  of  the  Church  from 
which  we  sprung,  than  may  be  found  expedient  in  the 
change  of  our  situation  from  a  daughter  to  a  sister  Church. 

In  the  convention  of  June,  1784,  which  included  lay- 
deputies  from  the  different  parishes,  the  aforesaid  declara- 
tion was  again  approved,  and  certain  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  ecclesiastical  government  were  established,  of  which 
the  following  is  recorded  on  the  printed  journal  as  the 
substance: — 

1.  That  none  of  the  orders  of  the  clergy,  whether  bishops, 
priests,  or  deacons,  who  may  be  under  the  necessity  of 
obtaining  ordination  in  any  foreign  state,  with  a  view  to 


94  Nole  to  page  23. 

officiate  or  settle  in  this  state,  shall,  at  the  time  of  their 
ordination,  or  at  any  time  afterward,  take  or  subscribe 
any  obligation  of  obedience,  civil  or  canonical,  to  any  foreign 
power  or  authority  whatsoever,  nor  be  admissible  into  the 
ministry  of  this  Church,  if  such  obligations  have  been  taktni 
for  a  settlement  in  any  foreign  country,  without  renouncing 
the  same,  by  taking  the  oaths  required  by  law,  as  a  test  of 
allegiance  to  this  state. 

2.  According  to  what  we  conceive  to  be  of  true  apostolic 
institution,  the  duty  and  office  of  a  bishop  differs  in  nothing 
from  that  of  other  priests,  except  in  the  power  of  ordination 
and  confirmation,  and  in  the  right  of  precedency  in  ecclesi- 
astical meetings  or  synods,  and  rdiall  accordingly  be  so  ex- 
ercised in  this  Church,  the  duty  and  office  of  priests  and 
deacons  remaining  as  heretofore.  And  if  any  further  dis- 
tinctions and  regulations,  in  the  different  orders  of  the 
ministry,  should  be  found  necessary  for  the  good  government 
of  the  Church,  the  same  shall  be  made  and  established  by 
the  joint  voice  and  authority  of  a  representative  body  of  the 
clergy  and  laity,  at  future  ecclesiastical  synods  or  conven- 
tions. 

3.  The  third  section  is  intended  to  define  or  discriminate 
some  of  the  separate  rights  and  powers  of  the  clergy,  and 
was  proposed  and  agreed  to  as  follows,  viz.  that  the  clergy 
shall  be  deemed  adequate  judges  of  the  ministerial  commis- 
sion and  authority,  which  is  necessary  to  the  due  adminis- 
tration of  the  ordinances  of  religion  in  their  own  Church, 
and  of  the  literary,  moral,  and  religious  qualifications  and 
abilities  of  persons  to  be  nominated  and  appointed  to  the 
different  orders  of  the  ministry  ;  but  the  approving  and  re- 
ceiving such  persons  to  any  particular  cure,  duty,  or  parish, 
when  so  nominated,  appointed,  set  apart,  consecrated,  and 
ordained,  is  in  the  people,  who  are  to  support  them,  and  to 
receive  the  benefit  of  their  ministry. 

4.  The  fourth  section  provides,  that  ecclesiastical  con- 
ventions or  synods  of  this  Church  shall  consist  of  the  clergy, 
and  one  lay-delegate  or  representative  from  each  vestry  or 
parish,  or  a  majority  of  the  same,  and  shall  be  held  annually 
on  the  fourth  Tuesday  of  October,  unless  some  canon  or 
rule  should  be  made  at  some  future  convention  for  altering 
the  time  of  meeting,  or  for  meeting  oftener  than  once  a 
year,  or  not  so  often,  or  with  a  larger  or  snuiUer  represen- 
tation of  the  Church,  as  may  be  judged  necessary.  JJut 
fundamental  rules,  once  duly  made,  shall  not  lie  altered, 
unless  two-thirds  of  such  majority,  as  aforesaid,  duly  assem- 
bled, shall  agree  therein. 


Note  to  page  23.  95 

The  following  heads  of  additional  articles  were  set  down 
for  the  consideration  of  the  next  convention. 

1.  That  the  power  and  authority  necessary  for  reclaim- 
ing or  excluding  scandalous  members,  whether  lay  or 
clerical,  and  all  jurisdiction  with  regard  to  offenders,  be 
exercised  only  by  a  representative  body  of  clergy  and  laity 
jointly. 

2.  That  the  power  of  suspending  or  dismissing  clergymen 
from  the  exercise  of  their  ministry,  in  any  particular  church, 
parish,  or  district,  be  by  the  like  authority. 

3.  That  all  canons  or  laws  for  church-government,  and 
all  alterations,  changes,  and  reforms,  in  the  Church  service 
and  liturgy,  or  in  points  of  doctrine  to  be  professed%nd 
taught  in  tlie  Church,  shall  also  be  by  the  like  authority. 

The  proceedings  of  these  conventions,  besides  the  circum- 
stance of  their  showing  an  accommodation  to  the  civil  sys- 
tem, by  the  introduction  of  the  laity,  gave  great  offence  to 
some  of  the  clergy,  by  the  definition  of  the  authority  of  a 
bishop,  in  the  second  of  the  articles  established.  It  is,  evi- 
dently, the  much  controverted  position  of  St.  Jerome.  The 
author  does  not  think  it  accurate  :  and  although  his  princi- 
ples on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  allow  of  an  accommoda- 
tion of  its  powers  to  the  circumstances  of  the  Church,  at 
different  times,  he  was  afraid  of  there  arising  some  incon- 
venience from  the  asserting,  as  a  fundamental  principle,  of 
what  was  in  the  opposite  extreme  to  that  of  the  overstrained 
authorities  of  the  office,  maintained  by  others. 

In  consequence  of  the  recommendation  and  proposal  of 
the  meeting  of  1784,  in  New- York,  there  was  a  convention 
of  the  clergy  of  South-Carolina,  at  Charleston,  in  the  spring 
of  1785.  This  was  the  state  in  which  there  was  the  most 
to  be  apprehended,  an  opposition  to  the  very  principle  of 
Episcopacy,  from  its  being  connected,  in  the  minds  of  some 
people,  with  the  idea  of  an  attachment  to  the  British  govern- 
ment. The  citizens  of  South-Carolina  were  the  last  visited 
by  the  British  armies,  and  had  suffered  more  than  any 
others  by  their  ravages.  The  truth  is,  there  was  real 
danger  of  an  opposition  in  the  convention,  to  a  compliance 
with  the  invitation  given.  But  the  danger  was  warded  off, 
by  a  proposal  made  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Smith,  to  accom- 
pany their  compliance  with  the  measure,  by  its  being  un- 
derstood, that  there  was  to  be  no  bishop  settled  in  that 
state.  Such  a  proposal,  from  the  gentleman  who,  it  was 
presumed,  would  be  the  bishop,  were  there  to  be  any 
chosen,  had  the  effect  intended.   Some  gentlemen,  it  is  said, 


96  Note  to  page  24. 

declarod  in  conversation,  that  they  had  contemplated  an 
opposition,  but  were  prevented  by  this  caution. 

Besides  the  conventions  whicli  have  been  mentioned, 
there  were  one  in  New- York,  and  another  in  New-Jersey, 
in  the  summer  of  1785.  But  as  their  proceedings  extended 
no  further  than  to  the  appointing  of  deputies  to  the  General 
Convention,  it  is  not  necessary  to  notice  them  any  further, 
than  is  dictated  by  this  circumstance. 


F.  Page  24.     Of  the  Gemral  Convention,  in  Philadelphia ^ 
in  September  and  October,  1785. 

The  president  of  this  convention  was  Dr.  White,  and  the 
secretary  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griflith. 

There  being  journals  of  this  convention,  and  of  the  con- 
ventions following,  the  matter  of  those  journals  will  not  be 
repeated  in  this  work,  except  so  far  as  may  be  thought 
necessary  to  the  sense  of  it,  the  design  being  principally  the 
communicating  of  facts  within  the  knowledge  and  the 
recollection  of  the  narrator,  tending  to  throw  light  on  what 
has  been  recorded.  The  statements  and  the  remarks  to  be 
now  offered,  will  be  arranged  under  the  heads  of  sundry 
sections. 

Section  I.     Of  the  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution. 

It  has  been  seen,  that  in  the  preceding  year,  at  New- 
York,  a  few  general  principles,  tending  to  the  organizing 
of  the  Church,  liad  been  recommended  to  the  churches  re- 
presented, and  proposed  to  those  not  represented.  As  all 
the  articles  except  the  fourth,  which  recognized  the  English 
liturgy,  with  the  exception  of  the  political  parts  of  it,  were 
adopted  by  the  present  convention,  they  became  a  bond  of 
union,  and  indeed,  the  only  one  acted  under,  until  the  year 
1789.  For  as  to  the  general  constitution,  framed  at  the 
period  now  before  us,  it  stood  on  recommendation  only, 
and  was  of  no  use,  except  in  hel|)ing  to  convince  those  who 
were  attached  to  that  mode  of  transacting  business,  that  it 
was  very  idle  to  bring  gentlemen  together  from  different 
states,  for  the  purpose  of  such  inconclusive  proceedings. 

The  fifth  and  the  eighth  articles  of  this  proposed  constitu- 
tion deserve  particular  notice,  because  they  have  been  sub- 
jects of  considerable  conversation  and  censure. 


J^o/c.  to  page  24,  97 

Tiic  former  of  these  articles  provided,  that  every  bishop 
should  1)0  a  member  of  the  convention  "  r.?;  o/Z/c/o."  Ac- 
cordinijly,  the  article  was  loiully  objected  to  I)y  the  clergy 
to  the  eastward  ;  because  of  its  not  providing  for  Episcopal 
presidency. 

The  constitution  was  drafied  by  the  author,  in  a  sub- 
committee; a  t)art  of  a  general  committee,  consisting  of  a 
clergyman  and  a  layman  from  each  state;  and  originally 
provided,  that  a  bishop,  if  any  were  present,  should  preside. 
In  the  sub-committee,  a  gentleman,  withont  mucli  con- 
sideration of  the  subject,  and  contrary  to  what  his  good 
sense,  with  such  an  advantage,  woidd  Imve  dictated,  ob- 
jected to  the  clause ;  and  insisted,  that  ho  had  read,  although 
lie  could  not  recollect  in  what  book,  that  this  had  not  been 
a  prerogative  of  bishops  in  ancient  ecclesiastical  assemblies. 
The  objection  was  over-ruled,  by  all  the  other  members  of 
the  sub-committee.  But  when  the  instrument,  after  |)assing 
in  the  general  committee,  was  brought  into  the  convention, 
the  same  gentleman,  not  expecting  to  succeed,  and  merely, 
as  he  afterwards  said,  to  be  consistent,  iDade  a  motion  to 
strike  out  the  clause.  Contraiy  to  expectation,  he  was 
supported  by  another  lay-gentleman,  who  took  an  active 
part  in  all  the  measures;  and  who,  in  the  sub-committee, 
had  been  of  another  mind.  Thus  a  debate  was  brought 
on,  which  produced  more  heat  than  any  thing  else  that 
happened  during  the  session.  As  the  voting  was  by  orders, 
the  clergy,  who,  with  the  exception  of  one  gentleman,  were 
for  the  clause,  might  have  quashed  the  whole  article.  But 
this  appeared  to  them  to  be  wiong ;  because  it  contained 
nothing  contrary  to  the  principle  of  Episcopal  presidency  ; 
and  the  general  object  was  such  as  ought  to  have  been 
provided  for.  Accordingly,  the  article  passed,  as  it  stands 
on  the  journal ;  that  is,  with  silence  as  to  the  point  in 
question.  It  was  considered,  that  practice  might  settle 
what  had  better  be  provided  for  by  law;  and  that  even 
such  provision  might  be  the  result  of  a  more  mature  con- 
sideration of  the  subject.  The  latter  expectation  was  jus- 
tified by  the  event. 

The  other  article  provided,  that  every  clergyman  should 
be  amenable  to  the  convention  of  the  state  to  which  he 
should  belong.  This  was  objected  to  by  the  English  bishops, 
as  appears  in  the  letter  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York  ;  who  there  complain,  that  it  is  "  a  degradation 
of  the  clerical,  and  much  more  of  the  Episcopal  character." 
The  foundation  of  this  complaint,  hke  that  of  the  other, 


SQ  Note  to  'page  24. 

was  ratlior  in  omission,  than  in  any  thing  positively  de- 
clared. For  the  bishop's  being  amenable  to  the  convention 
in  the  state  to  which  he  belonged,  does  not  necessarily 
involve  any  thing  more,  than  that  he  should  be  triable  by 
laws  of  their  enacting,  himself  being  a  part  of  the  body  : 
and  it  did  not  follow,  that  he  might  be  deposed  or  censnred, 
either  by  laymen  or  by  presbyters.  This,  however,  ought 
to  have  been  guarded  against:  but  to  have  attempted  it, 
while  the  convention  were  in  the  temper  excited  by  the 
altercations  concerning  the  fifth  article,  would  have  been  to 
no  purpose. 

In  this  whole  business,  there  was  encountered  a  prejudice 
entertained  by  many  of  the  clergy  in  other  states;  who 
thought,  that  nothing  should  have  been  done  towards  the 
organizing  of  the  Church,  until  the  obtaining  of  the  Epis- 
copacy. This  had  been  much  insisted  on,  in  the  preceding 
year,  in  New- York.  Let  us — it  was  said — first  have  an 
head,  and  then  let  us  proceed  to  regulate  the  body.  It 
was  answered,  on  that  occasion — let  us  gather  the  scattered 
limbs,  and  then  let  the  head  be  superadded.  Certainly, 
the  diffierent  Episcopalian  congregations  knew  of  no  union 
before  the  revolution ;  except  what  vv^as  the  result  of  the 
connexion  which  they  in  common  had  with  the  bishop  of 
London.  The  authority  of  that  bishop  being  withdrawn, 
what  right  had  the  Episcopalians  in  any  state,  or  in  any 
one  part  of  it,  to  choose  a  bishop  for  those  in  any  other  ? 
And  until  an  union  were  eflfected,  what  is  there  in  Chris- 
tianity generally,  or  in  the  principles  of  this  Church  in 
particular,  to  hinder  them  from  taking  different  courses  in 
different  places,  as  to  all  things  not  necessary  to  salvation? 
Which  might  have  produced  different  liturgies,  different 
articles.  Episcopacy  from  different  sources,  and,  in  shorty 
very  many  churches,  instead  of  one  extending  over  the 
United  States;  and  that,  without  any  ground  for  the  charge 
of  schism,  or  of  the  invasion  of  one  another's  rights.  The 
course  taken  has  embraced  all  the  diff'erent  congregations. 
It  is  far  from  being  certain,  that  the  same  event  would  have 
been  produced  by  any  other  plan  that  might  have  been  de- 
vised. For  instance,  let  it  be  supposed,  that  in  any  district 
of  Connecticut,  the  clergy  and  the  people,  not  satisfied  with 
the  choice  made  of  Bishop  Seabury,  or  with  the  contem- 
plated plan  of  settlement,  had  acted  for  themselves,  instead 
of  joining  with  their  brethren.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
prove  the  unlawfulness  of  such  a  scheme  ;  or,  until  an  or- 
ganization were  made,  that  the  minor  part  were  bound  to 


Note  to  page  24.  99 

submit  to  the  will  of  the  majority.  There  was  no  likeli- 
hood of  such  an  indiscreet  proceeding  in  Connecticut.  But 
in  some  other  departments  which  might  be  named,  it  would 
not  have  been  surprising.  Let  it  be  remarked,  that  in  the 
preceding  hypothesis  there  is  supposed  to  have  been,  in 
the  different  neighbourhoods,  a  bond  of  union  not  dissolved 
by  the  revolution.  This  sentiment  is  congenial  with  Chris- 
tianity itself,  and  with  Christian  discipline  in  the  beginning; 
the  connexion  not  existing  congregationally,  but,  in  every 
instance,  without  dependence  on  the  houses  in  which  the 
worship  of  the  different  portions  of  the  aggregate  body  may 
be  carried  on. 

Section  II.     Of  the  Measures  taken  to  ohtaiu  the  Episcopacy. 

The  expression  should  be  noticed,  on  account  of  the 
pi-etence  made  by  some,  that  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  begun  with  its  obtaining  of  the  Episcopacy. 
According  to  this  notion,  where  dioceses  exist  independently 
on  one  another,  as  was  the  condition  of  all  Christendom  for 
a  long  time  after  the  preaching  of  the  apostles,  on  the 
decease  of  every  bishop,  his  church  became  extinct.  A 
new  name  does  not  characterize  the  church  as  new,  but 
may  arise  from  civil  changes,  in  various  ways  to  be  conceived 
of.  What  was  called  formerly  "  the  Church  of  England 
in  America,"  did  not  cease  to  exist  on  the  removal  of  the 
Episcopacy  of  the  bishop  of  London,  by  the  providence  of 
God,  but  assumed  a  new  name,  as  the  dictate  of  propriety. 

It  may  be  matter  of  surprise,  that,  after  the  clamour  made 
but  a  few  years  before  this  period,  on  the  proposal  of  an 
American  Episcopacy,  and  considering  the  fashion  of 
objecting  to  it  prevailing  even  among  a  considerable 
proportion  of  our  own  communion,  there  should  now  be  a 
unanimous  application  for  it,  from  a  fair  representation  of 
the  Church  in  seven  states  of  the  Union;  the  lay  part 
consisting  principally  of  gentlemen  who  had  been  active  in 
the  late  revolution,  and  made  under  circumstances  which 
required  the  consent  of  the  very  power  we  had  been  at  war 
with.*  The  truth  is,  that  if  there  existed  any  inclination 
to  object — and  there  is  no  certainty  of  the  contrary — it  was 
prevented  by  what  is  to  be  related. 


*  In  eyidence  of  the  unanimity,  there  is  in  possession  of  the  author,  the  originaJ 
instrument,  signed  by  all  the  clerical  and  all  the  lay  members  who  gave  attend- 
-aiiee  on  the  business  of  the  convention. 


100  .Yo/«  to  page  24. 

A  few  months  before  the  present  period,  Bishop  Seabury 
had  arrived  in  Connecticut,  uith  consecration  from  the 
non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland.  Tlie  clergy  in  that  state, 
not  liking  the  complexion  of  the  measures  taken  for  the 
calling  of  a  General  Convention,  wrote  to  several  of  the 
southern  clergy,  inviting  them  to  a  convention  to  be  held 
in  the  summer  at  New-Haven.  What  answer  they  received 
from  others  is  not  here  known  :  but  that  of  Philadelphia 
thanked  them  for  the  invitation ;  congratulated  Bishop 
Seabury  on  his  arrival;  apologized  for  the  not  coming,  by 
the  expectation  of  the  convention  in  Se))teniber;  and 
invited  the  clergy  of  Connecticut  to  attend  the  latter. 

When  the  time  of  the  convention  in  Philadelphia  drew 
near,  Bishop  Seabury  wrote  to  Dr.  Smith,  then  living  in 
Maryland,  a  letter,  which  he  enclosed,  under  cover,  to  Dr. 
Chandler,  of  Elizabeth-Town,  who  sent  it,  in  like  manner, 
to  the  author,  desiring  him  to  read,  and  then  forward  it  to 
Dr.  Smith.  In  this  letter,  a  copy  of  which  the  author  has 
now  before  him.  Bishop  Seabury,  besides  objecting  to 
sundry  of  the  measures  taken  in  the  southern  states, 
declared  himself  in  very  strong  terms  against  the  admission 
of  the  laity  into  ecclesiastical  councils;  and  indeed  against 
that  of  presbyters  also,  except  into  the  diocesan.  For 
although  his  expressions  are,  that  they  were  not  admitted 
into  general  councils,  and  this  is  very  indefinite,  yet  it  would 
seem  from  the  connexion,  tliat  he  disapproved  of  submitting 
the  general  concerns  of  the  American  (Church  to  any  other 
than  bishops.  It  is  the  arrangement  of  the  Church  in  which 
Bishop  Seabury  received  his  Episcopacy. 

This  letter,  which,  agreeably  to  a  desire  expressed  in  it, 
was  laid  before  the  convention,  produced  some  animadver- 
sions. A  few  of  the  lay  gentlemen  spoke  more  warndy 
than  the  occasion  seemed  to  justify,  considering,  that  the 
letter  appeared  to  contain  the  honest  sentiments  of  the 
writer,  delivered  in  inoffensive  terms.  It  was  addressed 
to  a  gentleman  who  had  long  lived  in  habits  of  acfjuaintance 
with  the  writer.  And  as  for  its  being  designed  for  the 
hearing  of  the  body  then  assembled,  it  sliould  have  been 
remembered,  that  the  clergy  of  Connecticut  had  been 
invited  to  the  meeting,  by  those  at  whose  desire  they  had 
appeared  themselves.  On  this  ground,  they  were  answered 
by  some  of  the  clergy — particularly  by  Dr.  Andrews. 
For  the  letter,  sec  Appendix,  No.  4. 

It  naturally  happened  in  regard  to  any  apprehensions 
entertained  of  an  excessive  hierarchy,  that  they  influenced 


ISioie  to  page  24:.  101 

to  the  very  application  to  England,  whicli  had' formerly, 
from  the  very  same  cause,  been  contemplated  with  jealousy. 
It  was  generally  understood,  that  the  door  was  open  to 
consecration  in  Scotland  ;  or  at  least,  that  if  there  should 
be  any  impediment,  it  must  arise  from  some  particulars, 
whicii  had  been  thought  too  republican  by  many.  That 
the  clergy  unanimously,  and  that  a  very  great  body  of  the 
laity,  would  adhere  to  Episcopacy,  was  well  known;  and 
therefore,  how  natural  the  recourse  to  a  quarter  in  which 
it  was  thought  there  would  be  less  stiffness,  on  the  points 
objected  to  by  Bishop  Seabury !  it  may  be  added — in  which 
the  political  principles  obtaining,  although  monarchical, 
were  not  such  as  favoured  arbitrary  power.  It  ought  to  be 
understood,  that  this  is  the  sujjposed  strain  of  reasoning  of 
a  few  only.  The  nsajority  of  the  convention  certainly 
thought  it  a  matter  of  choice,  and  even  required  by  decency, 
to  apply,  in  the  tirst  instance,  to  the  Church  of  whicii  the 
American  had  been  till  now  a  j)art.  No  doubt,  the  sentiment 
was  strengthened  by  the  general  disapprobation  entertained 
in  America,  of  the  prejudices  which,  in  the  year  1688,  in 
Scotland,  had  deprived  the  Episcopal  Church  of  her 
establishment,  and  had  kept  her  ever  since  in  hostility  to 
the  family  on  the  throne.  As  to  Bishop  Seabury's  failure 
in  England,  the  causes  of  it,  as  stated  in  his  letter,  seemed 
to  point  out  a  way  of  obviating  the  difficulty  in  the  present 
case.  The  same  causes  had  been,  with  no  considerable 
variety,  stated  to  the  author  in  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Murray,  formerly  of  Reading  in  this  state,  who  declared 
his  full  conviction,  that  a  proper  application,  from  such  a 
body  as  was  in  contemplation,  that  is,  the  present  convention, 
of  whose  intended  meeting  he  had  been  informed,  would  be 
followed  by  success.  As  the  doctor  was  supposed  to  have 
conversed  with  leading  characters  on  the  subject,  which 
was  found  afterward  to  have  been  the  case,  his  letter  had 
great  weight  in  encouraging  the  measure. 

So  it  was,  then,  that  the  projected  application  found  no 
opposition.  The  duty  of  proposing  a  mode  of  application 
was  added  to  the  other  duties  of  the  general  committee 
which  had  been  appointed.  As  one  of  a  sub-committee, 
the  author  drafted  the  resolves  and  the  address,  as  they 
stand  on  the  journals,  with  tlie  exception  of  a  few  verbal 
alterations.  Tims  a  foundation  was  laid  for  the  procuring 
of  the  present  Episcopacy.  It  was  a  |;rudent  provision  of 
the  convention,  to  instruct  the  deputies  from  the  respective 
states,  to  apply  to  the  civil  authorities  existing  in  them 


102  Note  to  page  24. 

respectively,  for  their  sanction  of  the  measure,  in  order  to 
avoid  one  of  the  impediments  which  had  stood  in  the  way 
of  Bishop  Seabiiry.  The  address  above  aUuded  to,  which 
was  the  first  step  in  the  correspondence  with  the  Enghsh 
prelates,  is  in  the  Appendix,  No.  5. 

The  Episcopalian  public  may  be  supposed  to  be  satisfied 
that  the  course  taken  was  the  best,  in  every  point  of  view, 
and  that  it  can  never  sulFer  by  a  comparison  with  any  other 
mode  which  might  have  been  pursued.  To  have  abandoned 
the  Episcopal  succession,  would  have  been  in  opposition  to 
primitive  order  and  ancient  habits  ;  and  besides,  would  at 
least  have  divided  the  Church.  To  have  had  recourse  to 
Scotland,  independently  on  the  objections  entertained 
against  the  political  principles  of  the  non-jurors  of  that 
country,  would  not  have  been  proper,  without  previous 
disappointment  on  a  request  made  to  the  mother  Church. 
Another  resource  remained,  in  foreign  ordination  ;  which 
had  been  made  the  easier  by  the  act  of  the  British  parliament, 
passed  in  the  preceding  year,  to  enable  the  bishop  of  London 
to  ordain  citizens  or  subjects  of  foreign  countries  without 
exacting  the  usual  oaths.  But,  besides  that  this  would 
have  kept  the  Church  under  the  same  hardships  which  had 
heretofore  existed,  and  had  been  so  long  complained  of; 
dependence  on  a  foreign  country  in  spirituals,  when  there 
had  taken  place  independence  in  temporals,  is  what  no 
prudent  person  would  have  pleaded  for. 

Section  III.     Of  the  Alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common 

Prayer. 

When  the  members  of  the  convention  first  came  together, 
very  few,  or  rather,  it  is  believed,  none  of  them  entertained 
thoughts  of  altering  the  liturgy,  any  further  than  to 
accommodate  it  to  the  revolution.  There  being  no  express 
authority  to  the  purpose,  the  contrary  was  implied  in  the 
sending  of  deputies,  on  the  ground  of  the  recommendation 
and  proposal  from  New- York,  which  presumed  that  the 
book,  with  the  above  exception,  should  remain  entire.  The 
only  Church  to  which  this  remark  does  not  apply,  is  that  of 
Virginia;  which  authorized  its  deputies  to  join  in  a  review, 
liable  however  to  a  rejection  by  their  own  convention. 
Every  one,  so  far  as  is  here  known,  wished  for  alterations 
in  the  dificrcnt  offices.  But  it  was  thought,  at  New- York, 
in  the  preceding  year,  that  such  an  enterprise  could  not  be 
undertaken,  until  the  Church  should  be  consolidated  and 


Note  to  page  24.  10:3 

or^anizeJ.     Perhaps  it  would  have  been  better,  if  the  same 
opinion  had  been  continued  and  acted  on. 

But  it  happened  otherwise.  Some  of  the  members 
hesitated  at  making  the  book  so  permanent,  as  it  would 
have  been  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  recommendatory 
instrument.  Arguments  were  held  in  favour  of  a  review, 
from  change  of  language,  and  from  the  notorious  fact,  that 
there  were  some  matters  universally  held  exceptionable, 
independently  on  doctrine.  A  moderate  review,  fell  in 
with  the  sentiments  and  the  wishes  of  every  member. 
Added  to  all  this,  there  gained  ground  a  confident  persuasion, 
that  the  general  mind  of  the  communion  would  be  so  gratified 
by  it,  as  that  acquiescence  might  be  confidently  expected. 
On  these  considerations,  the  matter  was  undertaken. 

The  alterations  were  prepared  by  another  sub-division  of 
the  general  committee  than  that  to  which  the  author 
belonged.  When  brought  into  the  committee,  they  were 
not  reconsidered ;  because  the  ground  would  have  been  to 
go  over  again  in  the  convention.  Accordingly,  he  cannot 
give  an  account  of  any  arguments  arising  in  the  preparatory 
stage  of  the  business.  Even  in  the  convention,  there  were 
but  few  points  canvassed,  with  any  material  difference  of 
principle :  and  those  only  shall  be  noticed. 

The  first  controversy  of  this  description  was  introduced, 
on  a  motion  made  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Page,  of  Virginia,  since 
governor  of  that  state,  to  leave  out  the  first  four  petitions  of 
the  litany,  and,  instead  of  them,  to  introduce  a  short  petition, 
which  he  had  drawn  up,  more  agreeable  to  his  ideas  of  the 
divine  persons  recognized  in  those  petitions.  The  mover 
declared,  that  he  had  no  objection  to  the  invoking  of  our 
blessed  Saviour,  whose  divinity  the  prayer  acknowledged, 
and  whom  he  considered  as  invoked  through  the  whole  of 
the  liturgy ;  which,  he  thought,  might  be  defended  by 
scripture.  The  objection  lay  to  the  word  "  Trinity," 
which  he  remarked  to  be  unauthorized  by  scripture,  and  a 
foundation  of  much  unnecessary  disputation.  But  he  said, 
that  the  leaving  out  of  the  fourth  petition  only,  in  which 
only  the  word  occurred,  would  leave  the  other  petitions 
liable  to  the  charge  of  acknowledging  three  Gods;  and 
therefore,  he  moved  to  strike  out  the  whole.  The  llev. 
Dr.  West,  of  Baltimore,  answered  Mr.  Page,  in  a  speech 
in  which  the  doctor  appeared  to  be  in  great  agitation, 
partly  because,  as  he  said,  he  was  unused  to  unprepared 
speaking,  but  evidently  the  more  so,  from  his  apprehensions 
arising  from  what  he  supposed  to  be  the  signal  for  aiming 


104  Nolc  io  page  24:. 

at  very  hazardous  and  essential  alterations.  Perhaps  much 
more  would  have  been  said,  but  during  Dr.  West's  S|)eech, 
it  was  whispered  about,  that  there  was  really  no  use  in  going- 
into  sucli  a  controversy;  that  Mr.  Page  had  mauc  the 
motion,  merely  to  preserve  conssistency  of  conduct;  that  he 
had  attempted  the  same  thing  in  the  sub-committee,  and 
well  knew,  from  what  had  passed,  that  there  was  no 
prospect  of  success,  but  that  he  coidd  not  dispense  with  the 
bringing  of  the  question  before  the  body.  Accordingly,  as 
soon^as^Dr.  West  had  finished,  it  was  put  and  lost  without 
a  division.* 

The  next  materia!  question,  to  the  best  of  the  recollection 

retained,  was  on  a  motion  for  framing  a  service  for  the  fourth 

of  July,     This  was  the  most  injudicious  step  taken  by  the 

convention.     Might  they   not  have  foreseen,    that    every 

clergyman,  whose  political  principles  interfered  with  the 

appointment,  would  be  under  a  strong  temptation  to  cry 

down  the  intended  book,  if  it  were  only  to  get  rid  of  the 

offensive  holiday.''     Besides  this  point  of  prudence,  was  it 

not  the  dictate  of  moderation,  to  avoid  the  introducing  of 

extraneous  matter  of  difference  of  opinion,   in  a  Church 

that  was  to  be  built  up  f     Especially,  when  there  was  in 

contenq)!ation  the    moderating   of  religious   tests,    was    it 

consistent  to  introduce  a  political  one  .^     It  was  said,  that 

the  revolution  being  now  accomplished,  all  the  clergy  ought, 

as  good  citizens,  to  conform  to  it ;  and  to  uphold,  as  far  as 

their  influence  extended,  the  civil  system  which  had  been 

established.     Had  the  question  been  concerning  the  praying 

for  the  prosperity  of  the  commonwealths,  and  for  the  persons 

of  those  who  rule  in  them,  the  argument  would  have  been 

conclusive ;   and,   indeed,   this   had   been   done  by  all   the 

remaining    clergy,    however  disaffected  they  might    have 

been,  thmughout   the   war.     But,   the   argument  did    not 

ap|)ly  to  a  retrospective  approbation  of  the  origin  of  the 

civil    constitutions,    or    rather,    to   a   profession   of   such 

approbation,  contrary  to  known  fact. 

This  was  one  of  the  few  occasions  on  which  the  autlior 
used  the  privilege  reserved  by  him  on  his  acceptance  of  the 
presidency,  to  deliver  Ins  opinion.     To  his  great  surprise, 


*  In  a  controversy  since  moved  in  Boston,  Bishop  Provoost  has  been  named, 
as  havin<'  endeavoured  U\  accom|>lish  the  omission  of  tlu;  acknowledgment  of  the 
Trinity.  It  in  not  true:  and  the  error  maybe  supposed  to  liave  arisen  from 
wliat  lias  been  related  of  the  ellbrt  of  Mr.  Page.  There  have  been  various 
misrepresentations  of  llie  matter,  which  have  made  it  the  more  necessary  to  state 
the  fact. 


X>)le  io  page  ZX.  .10.5' 

there  was  but  one  tccntlemati — and  he  a  professed  friend  to 
American  independence — who  spoke  on  the  same  side  of  the 
question  ;  and  there  were  very  'iew,  if  any,  who  voted  with 
the  two  sjjeakers  against  the  measure.  13odies  of  men  arc 
more  aj)t  than  individuals  to  calculate  on  an  implicit 
submission  to  their  determinations.  The  present  was  a 
strikin^^  instance  of  the  remark.  The  members  of  the 
convention  seem  to  have  thoui;ht  themselves  so  established 
in  their  station  of  ecclesiastical  legislators,  that  they  might 
expect  of  the  many  clergy  who  had  been  averse  to  the 
American  revolution,  the  adoption  of  this  service  ;  although, 
by  the  use  of  it,  they  must  make  an  implied  acknowledgment 
of  their  error,  in  an  address  to  Almighty  God.  What  must 
further  seem  not  a  little  extraordinary,  the  service  was 
principally  arranged  and  the  prayer  alluded  to  was  composed, 
by  a  reverend  gentleman,  (Dr.  Smith)  who  had  written  and 
acted  against  the  declaration  of  independence,  and  was 
unfavourably  looked  on  by  the  supj)orters  of  it,  during  the 
whole  revolutionary  war.  His  conduct,  in  the  present 
particular,  was  different  from  what  might  have  been 
ex|>ected  from  his  usual  discernment;  but  he  doubtless 
calculated  on  what  the  good  of  the  Church  seemed  to  him 
to  require,  in  consequence  of  a  change  of  circumstances; 
and  he  was  not  aware  of  the  effect  which  would  be  produced 
by  the  retrospective  jnoperty  of  the  appointment.  The 
greater  stress  is  laid  on  this  matter,  because  of  the  notorious 
fact,  that  the  majority  of  the  clergy  could  not  have  nsed 
the  service,  without  subjecting  themselves  to  ridicule  and 
censure.  For  the  author's  part,  having  no  hindrance  of 
this  sort,  he  contented  himself  with  having  opposed  the 
measure,  and  kept  the  day  from  respect  to  the  requisition 
of  the  convention;  but  could  never  hear  of  its  being  kept, 
in  above  two  or  three  places  besides  Philadelphia.  He  is 
thus  particular  in  recording  the  incidents  attached  to  the 
matter  stated,  with  the  hope  of  rendering  it  a  caution  to 
ecclesiastical  bodies,  to  avoid  that  danger  into  which  human 
nature  is  so  apt  to  fall,  of  governing  too  much. 

On  the  subject  of  the  articles,  a  dispute  arose  in  regard 
to  the  article  on  justification;  not  as  it  was  at  last  agreed 
on,  but  as  it  was  proposed  by  the  sub-committee.  The 
objection  was  urged  principally  by  the  secretary  of  the 
convention — the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith — and  by  the  author. 
The  proposed  article  was  at  last  withdrawn,  and  the 
words  of  the  thirty-nine  articles,  on  that  subject,  were 
restored.     In  this  there  is  certainly  no    superaddition  to 

14 


1 00  Xoie  to  page  24. 

what  li  held  <^cncrally  by  divines  oftho  Church  of  England. 
As  to  the  siihstitntc  proposed,  the  objection  made  to  it,  was 
its  heini^  liable  to  a  construction  contrary  to  the  great 
ovanijclical  truth,  that  salvation  is  of  grace.  It  would 
liave  been  a  forced  construction,  but  not  to  be  disregarded. 
Some  wished  to  get  rid  of  the  new  article  introduced 
concerning  pretlestination,  v/ithout  stating  any  thing  in 
its  place.  This,  it  is  probable,  would  have  been  better 
than  the  proposed  article,  which  professes  to  say  something 
on  the  subject,  yet  in  reality  says  nothing.  But  many 
gentlemen  were  of  o[)inion,  that  the  sui)ject  was  not  to  be 
passed  over  in  silence  altogether;  and  therefore  consented 
to  the  article  on  predestination,  as  it  stands  on  the  proposed 
book.  The  opinion  of  the  author  was,  that  the  article 
should  1)0  accommodated,  not  to  individual  condition,  and 
to  everlasting  reward  and  punishment,  but  to  national 
designation,  and  to  a  state  of  covenant  with  God  in  the 
present  life.  Although  this  is  u  view  of  the  subject  still 
entertained  by  him,  yet  he  has  been  since  convinced, 
that  the  introducing  of  it  as  an  article  would  have 
endangered  needless  controversy  on  the  meanings  of  the 
terms  jiredestination  and  election,  as  used  in  the  New 
Testament.  If  we  cannot  do  away  the  ground  of  contro- 
versy heretofore  laid,  it  at  least  becomes  us  to  avoid  the 
furnishing  of  new  matter  for  the  excitement  of  it.  As  to 
the  article  in  the  proposed  book,  although  no  one  professed 
scruples  against  what  is  there  aiHrmed,  yet  there  seemed 
a  difficulty  in  discovering  for  what  purpose  it  was  introduced. 
The  author  never  met  with  any  who  were  satisfied  with  it. 
On  the  subject  o-f  original  sin,  an  incident  occurred, 
strongly  marking  the  propensity  already  noticed,  unwarily 
to  make  private  opinion  the  standard  of  public  faith.  The 
sidj-committee  had  introduced  into  this  article  the  much 
controverted  j)assage  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  begitining  at  the  ninth  verse;  and  they  had 
applied  it  as  descrijjtive  of  the  Christian  state.  The  con- 
struction is  exacted  by  a  theory,  than  which  nothing  was 
further  I'rom  ihat  of  the  gentleman  (Dr.  tSmith)  who  would 
have  bound  this  sense  of  the  passage  on  the  Church.  The 
interpretation  generally  given  by  divines  of  the  Church  of 
England,  makes  the  words  descriptive  of  man's  unregene- 
rate  state,  in  which  there  is  a  struggle  between  nature  and 
grace,  to  the  extent  of  the  terms  made  use  of  in  scripture. 
This  seems  necessary  to  a  conformity  with  the  Christian 
character,  as  drawn  in  innumerable  places.     It  was  on  a 


Nole  to  page  2^\.  107 

proposal  of  the  author,  that  the  article  was  altered  in  this 
particular,  although  the  gentlcinan  who  had  drafted  it  not 
only  earnestly  contended  for  ids  construction  of  t!ie  text, 
but  could  not  he  made  sensible  of  the  danger  which  would 
have  resulted  from  the  establishing  of  that  construction,  as 
a  test  to  every  candidate  for  orders. 

Less  prominent  debates  on  the  subject  of  the  articles  are 
not  here  noticed.  Whatever  is  novel  in  them,  was  taken 
froui  a  book  in  the  j)ossession  of  the  Ilev.  Dr.  Smith.  The 
book  was  anonymous,  and  was  one  of  tlie  j)ublications 
which  have  abounded  in  England,  projecting  changes  in  the 
established  articles. 

On  this  business  of  the  review  of  the  Hook  of  Common 
Prayer  and  of  the  articles,  the  convention  seem  to  have 
fallen  into  two  capital  errors,  independently  on  the  merits 
of  the  alterations  themselves.  The  lirst  error  was  tiie 
ordering  of  the  printing  of  a  large  edition  of  the  book, 
which  did  not  well  consist  with  the  principle  of  mere  pro- 
posal. Perhaps  much  of  the  opposition  to  it  arose  from  this 
very  thing,  which  seemed  a  stretch  of  |)Ower,  designed  to 
effect  the  introduction  of  the  book  to  actual  use,  in  order  to 
prevent  a  discussion  of  its  merits.  The  other  error  was  the 
ordering  of  the  use  of  it  in  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  on 
the  occasion  of  Dr.  Smith's  sermon,  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
session  of  the  convention.  This  helped  to  confirm  the 
opinion,  of  its  being  to  be  introduced  with  a  high  hand,  and 
subjected  the  clergy  of  Philadelphia  to  extraordinary  diffi- 
culty ;  for  they  continued  the  use  of  the  liturgy,  agreeably 
to  the  alterations,  on  assurances  given  by  many  gentlemen, 
that  they  would  begin  it  in  their  respective  churches  imnie- 
diately  on  their  return.  This  the  greater  number  of  theiK 
never  did ;  and  there  are  known  instances,  in  each  of  which 
the  stipulation  was  shrunk  back  from,  because  some  influen- 
tial member  of  a  congregation  was  dissatisfied  with  some 
one  of  the  alterations.  This  is  a  fact  which  shows  very 
strongly,  how  much  weight  of  character  is  necessary  to  such 
changes  as  may  be  thought  questionable. 

Section  IV.     Of  sundry  Measures  and  Escents,   connected 
with  the  Acts  oftlte  Convention  of  1785. 

The  first  particular  claiming  attention  under  this  head, 
is  the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer;  that  is, 
of  the  edition  which  has  received  the  name  of  Plie  proposed 
book. 


1^5  Note  to  jKiii^e  24. 

Dr.  Smith,  Dr.  Wiiartoii,  and  the  autlior,  Avho  were 
appointed  to  this  service,  gave  their  application  to  it  witliout 
delay.  But  here,  unexpected  difficulties  occurred,  which 
are  taken  notice  of,  principally  with  the  view  of  guarding 
against  the  like  in  future  ecclesiastical  proceedings. 

The  committee  had  been  authorized  to  make  verbal  alter- 
ations, but  were  restrained  from  departing,  either  in  form 
or  in  substance,  from  what  had  been  agreed  on.  Setting 
aside  the  questions  arising  on  this  distinction,  the  imperfec- 
tions evidently  remaining  on  some  points  by  reason  of  haste, 
and  which  would  have  been  remedied  had  they  been  at- 
tended to,  and,  added  to  this,  the  importunities  of  some  of 
the  clergy,  who  pressed  the  committee  to  extend  their 
powers  pretty  far,  in  full  confidence  that  the  liberty  would 
be  acceptable  to  all,  were  such,  that,  in  the  end,  they  were 
drawn  on  to  take  a  greater  latitude  than  ought  to  be  al- 
lowed in  such  a  work. 

Besides  discretion  as  to  verbal  alterations,  the  commit- 
tee were  fully  empowered  on  the  subject  of  the  tables,  and 
on  that  of  the  selection  of  reading  psalms.  The  author's 
proposal  was  to  take  whole  psiilms,  selecting  such  as  fall  in 
with  the  general  subjects  of  divine  worship,  and  leaving  the 
officiating  minister  to  his  choice,  among  those  which  slioidd 
be  selected.  But  the  other  members  of  the  committee 
were  of  opinion,  that  as  much  should  be  retained  as  could 
not  well  be  objected  to,  on  the  score  of  being  unsuitable 
parts  of  Christian  prayer  and  praise.  The  consequence  of 
this,  was  a  charge  of  having  treated  scripture  irreverently, 
by  the  leaving  out  of  particular  passages,  on  the  principle  of 
their  being  offensive.  Although  the  omissions  were  not 
made  on  that  ground,  because  it  is  not  every  part  of  scrip- 
ture that  can  be  introduced  into  the  exercise  of  devotion, 
yet  there  would  apparently  have  been  less  colour  for  the 
censure,  on  the  other  plan  of  the  selection  of  entire  psalms. 
The  author  has  been  since  convinced,  that  instead  of  a  se- 
lection of  psalms  in  any  shape,  a  better  way  would  have 
been  to  print  the  psalter  entire,  and  to  leave  every  officiat- 
ing minister  to  his  choice,  from  lime  to  time.  This  would 
have  less  interfered  with  the  ideas  of  those  who,  on  account 
of  the  sublime  spirit  of  devotion  running  through  the  whole 
body  of  the  psalms,  were  averse  to  the  parting  with  any 
proportion  of  them  from  the  service  of  the  Church.  For 
although,  according  to  the  idea  here  suggested,  it  would 
have  been  impossible  to  have  gratilied  every  individual 
wnder  the  proposed  alternative,  yet  there  might  have  been 


Nuic  io  page  24.  100 

taken  which  ever  side  of  it  was  the  most  likely  to  be  satis- 
factory. 

It  has  been  painful  to  the  author,  that  he  has  found  him- 
self opposed  in  opinion  to  that  of  some  of  his  bretliren, 
whose  views  of  the  subject  have  the  appearance  of  being 
opened  to  them  by  the  sentiment  of  devotion.  Yet,  he 
cannot  perceive  the  propriety  of  putting  into  the  mouths  of 
a  whole  congregation  devotions  expressive  of  peculiar 
states  of  mind,  and  such  as  are  not  likely  to  be  applicable 
to  many  persons  in  an  ordinary  assembly;  for  instance, 
strains,  expressive  of  the  highest  exultation,  and  other 
strains,  expressive  of  the  lowest  depths  of  sorrow.  He  is 
aware  of  what  is  argued  in  favour  of  tiiis,  from  the  senti- 
ment of  Christian  sympathy,  by  which  every  member  of  a 
Church  may  enter  into  feelings  which  are  otherwise  not  his 
own,  but  which  he  may  reasonably  suppose  to  belong  to  some 
who  are  fellow-members  of  the  body.  The  author  respects 
the  plea,  but  cannot  bring  it  within  the  sphere  of  his  own 
ideas  of  the  precept,  to  "  pray  with  the  understanding." 
He  has  heard  of  another  argument  for  the  practice.  It  is 
the  useof  impressing  the  whole  of  those  excellent  composi- 
tions on  the  memories  of  all  the  members  of  the  Church. 
But  on  this  plan  it  would  seem,  that  scripture  would  be 
honoured  still  more,  if,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  it  were 
embodied  with  the  service.  This,  however,  could  not  have 
been  the  object  of  the  introduction  of  the  psalms.  There 
have  been  urged  testimonies  from  the  fathers,  demonstra- 
tive of  the  great  use  of  these  compositions  in  the  early  ages 
of  the  Church,  and  its  not  being  recorded  of  any  particular 
psalms,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest.  No:  the  whole  body 
of  them  may  have  been  a  fund  of  devotion,  consistently  with 
choice  made,  as  subject  and  as  circumstances  might  dictate. 
He  has  not  yet  found  evidence,  that  in  the  primitive  Church, 
as  in  the  Church  of  England,  the  book  was  gone  through  in 
a  routine  of  successive  portions.  Although  these  are  his 
opinions,  yet  he  laments  the  extent  of  the  innovation,  made 
at  the  period  referred  to,  because  he  believes  that  the  aim- 
ing at  so  much,  prevented  what  might  have  been  done  more 
effectually,  and  brought  into  universal  use,  by  allowance  of 
the  discretion  which  has  been  pleaded  for. 

Under  the  foregoing  head,  there  has  been  noticed  what 
is  here  thought  a  great  error  in  the  convention — the  print- 
ing of  the  book,  without  waiting  for  the  reception  of  the 
alterations,  and  their  being  in  use.  A  subordinate  error, 
accompanying  the  other,  was  the  endeavouring  to  raise  a 


110  Nuti  to  page  24. 

profit  from  the  book,  although  for  a  charitable  purpose.  It 
had  two  bad  consequences;  that  of  exciting  the  supposition 
that  tiie  books  were  made  the  dearer — although,  in  reality, 
this  was  not  the  fact;  and  that  of  inducing  the  committee  to 
send  them  to  the  clergy,  in  the  different  parts  of  the  conti- 
nent, confiding  in  their  exertions  for  the  benevolent  purpose 
declared.  Several  of  the  clergy  again  intrusted  tliem  to 
persons  from  whom  they  got  no  returns.  Hence  it  happened, 
that  when  the  ex|)enscs  of  the  edition  were  paid,  there  was 
not  so  much  left  for  the  charity,  as  to  be  an  adequate  con- 
sideration for  such  an  undertaking.  The  committee  were 
at  last  obliged  to  relinquish  the  design,  of  saving  for  the 
charity  the  usual  profit  of  the  booksellers,  who,  on  that 
change  of  plan,  made  rapid  sales  of  them. 

Another  bad  effect  of  the  pidjlication  was,  that  the  Eng- 
lish prelates  were  not  furnished  with  an  account  of  the  alter- 
ations so  soon  as  they  should  have  been,  considering  the 
application  that  had  come  before  them.  For  the  committee, 
having  had  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  imjiression  would 
go  on  rapidly,  had  not  furnished  a  copy  of  the  instrument 
containing  the  alterations.  Their  waiting  first  for  ])aper 
from  the  mills,  and  then,  for  one  interfering  object  and  an- 
other occurring  to  the  printer,  brought  it  to  spring  before  the 
edition  was  out.  It  is  true,  that  the  sheets  were  sent  by 
parcels  during  the  progress.  None  however  arrived  before 
the  answer  to  the  address  was  sent ;  and  this  inattention — 
or  what  seemed  such — the  bishops  could  not  account  for, 
as  the  archbishop  afterward  distantly  intimated  to  those 
who  received  consecration  in  England.  Hence  arose  the 
caution  with  which  the  convention  were  answered  by  the 
right  reverend  bctich  ;  a  caution  evidently  to  be  discerned, 
in  their  letter  of  the  24th  of  February,  178G.  For  some  of 
tlie  clergy  in  the  eastern  states,  from  what  is  here  supposed 
to  have  been  mistaken  zeal,  had  been  very  early  in  convey- 
ing to  their  clerical  accjuaintance  in  England,  an  unfavour- 
able representation  of  the  spirit  of  the  j)rocceding.s  ;  a  fact 
which  is  glanced  at  in  the  same  letter.  Although  the  im- 
j)ression  thus  produced  was  so  far  done  away  on  the  arrival 
of  the  book,  as  that  there  remained  no  radical  iirij)ediment 
to  the  gratification  of  the  Church,  in  granting  her  request 
made,  which  must  be  evident  to  every  one  who  reads  their 
subsequent  letter;  yet  it  follows  from  this  narrative,  that 
their  misapprehension  would  have  been  obviated,  if  the 
printing  had  been  confined  to  the  list  of  the  proposed  alte- 
rations. 


Note  to  pa^e  24.  Ill 

For  the  letter  of  the  English  prelates,  see  Appendix, 
No.  6. 

From  the  letter  of  their  lordships  it  appears,  that  the 
omission  of  the  article  of  Christ's  descent  into  iieii,  in  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  was  the  thing  principally  faulted.  It  uas 
theohjection  made  by  Dr.  Moss,  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells, 
that  swayed  in  this  matter.  A  gentleman  who  had  been  a 
member  of  the  convention — Richard  Peters,  Es(|. — happen- 
ing to  visit  England  a  few  months  after,  and  having  waited 
on  the  archbishop  at  the  request  of  the  committee,  the  said 
bishop  expressed  a  wish  to  see  him,  and,  in  the  consequent 
interview,  declared  very  strongly  his  disapprobation  of  that 
alteration.  It  was  learned  afterward  in  England,  from 
Dr.  Watson,  bishop  of  Landaff,  that  the  objection  came 
principally  from  the  quarter  here  noticed.  Indeed  he  ex- 
pressed himself  in  such  a  manner,  as  led  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  only  was  the  objector. 
No  doubt  the  bishops  generally  must  have  approved  of  the 
objection,  considering  their  concurring  in  the  strong  protest 
that  came  from  them,  on  the  subject  of  the  omitted  article. 
However,  from  the  different  particulars  attending  the  trans- 
action, the  author  is  disposed  to  believe,  that,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  above-mentioned  circumstance,  they  would 
hardly  have  started  their  objection  to  the  omission  in  such 
a  manner  as  carries  the  appearance  of  their  making  of  a 
restoration  of  the  clause  a  condition  of  their  compliance 
with  the  request.  As  to  the  bishop  of  Landaff,  he  plainly 
said,  speaking  on  the  merits  of  the  subject,  that  he  knew 
not  of  any  scriptural  authority  of  the  article,  unless  it  were 
the  passage  in  St.  Peter  (meaning  1.  iii.  19,  20.)  And 
this  he  said  must  be  acknowledged  a  passage  considerably 
involved  in  obscurity.  To  the  two  bishops  who  went  for 
consecration  it  was  very  evident,  that  the  bishop  of  Landaff 
was  far  from  being  attached  to  the  objection  in  which  he 
had  concurred.  It  is  probable,  that  the  same  may  have 
been  true  of  many  others  of  the  bench.  But  when  the 
matter  was  pressed  by  a  very  venerable  bishop,  eminent 
as  well  for  his  theological  learning  as  for  an  exemplary  life 
and  conversation,  and  rested  by  him  on  the  grouud  of  the 
contradiction  of  an  ancient  heresy,  it  must  have  been 
difficult  in  the  body  to  waive  the  objection,  considering  the 
novel  line  in  which  they  were  acting  j  and  their  inability, 
in  a  corporate  capacity,  to  act  at  all. 


J 1-3  Kole  lo  pa^-e '21. 

Section  V.      Of  Proceedings  of  Convendons  in  the  Statcff 

subsequent  to  those  of  the  General  Convention. 

For  a  while  there  was  fe't  the  evil  of  the  mistake  made 
in  the  beginning,  of  not  forwarding  co|)ies  of  the  alterations  > 
a  mistake,  less  to  be  imputed  to  the  committee  than  to 
the  convention,  who  had  given  no  order  on  the  subject  j 
but  who,  pcrhai)s,  presumed  on  the  editing  of  the  book, 
before  the  other  conventions  could  be  held.  They  were 
held  in  the  months  of  3Iay  and  June,  1786;  very  soon  after 
the  arrival  of  the  letter  of  the  bishops.  In  New-York  the 
question  of  ratifying  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  kept 
under  consideration.  In  New-Jersey  they  rejected  it,  ex- 
j)ressing  at  the  same  time  their  approbation  of  the  other 
proceedings  of  the  convention,  except  of  the  constitution. 
Tn  Pennsylvania  some  amendments  were  proposed.  The 
san)e  was  done  in  Maryland.  No  convention  met  in  Dela- 
ware. In  Virginia  it  was  adopted,  with  the  exception  of 
one  of  the  rubrics,  and  with  some  proposed  amendments  of 
the  articles  ;  many  dissenting  from  such  adoption  ;  not,  as 
the  author  was  well  informed,  because  of  the  alterations 
made,  but  because  they  were  so  few.  It  is  strange  to  tell, 
that  the  rubric,  held  to  be  intolerable  in  Virginia,  was  that 
allowing  the  minister  to  repel  an  evil  liver  from  the  com- 
munion. The  author,  some  time  after,  held  serious  argu- 
ment on  the  point,  with  a  gentleman  who  had  been  inllu- 
ential  in  the  state  convention.  The  offensive  matter  was 
not  the  precise  provisions  of  the  rubric,  but  that  there 
should  be  any  provision  of  the  kind,  or  ])ovver  exercised  to 
the  end  contemplated.  In  South-Carolina  the  book  was 
received  without  limitation.  On  the  whole,  it  was  evident 
that,  in  regard  to  the  liturgy,  the  labours  of  the  convention 
had  not  reached  their  object.  It  did  not  appear  that  the 
constitution  was  objected  to  in  any  state,  excej)t  in  that  of 
New-Jersey.  The  propriety  of  the  application  to  the  Eng- 
lish bishops  was  not  contradicted  any  where,  except  in 
South-Carolina  :  and  even  in  this  state  there  was  carried 
an  acquiescence  in  it.  Under  the  circumstances  stated, 
the  convention  to  be  lield  in  June,  1786,  was  looked  for- 
ward to,  as  what  would  either  remedy  the  difficulty  or 
increase  it. 

There  has  been  given  an  account  of  the  proceedings 
of  sundry  conventions  in  the  difTerent  states,  prior  to  the 
meeting  in  New-Brunswick,  in  3Iay,  1784.  At  that  period 
no  convention  had  assembled  in  Virginia.     But  in  May, 


ISnie  in  'page  24.  113 

1785,  there  \v:i.>  one  in  the  city  of  Richmond;  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  which  there  shall  he  here  given  a  general 
account ;  for  the  same  reason  as  in  reference  to  the  pro- 
ceedings for  the  organization  of  the  other  churches  com- 
prehended within  the  union. 

There  had  heen  previously  passed,  in  the  year  1784,  an 
act  of  the  legislature,  incorporating  the  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  respective  parishes  individually,  and  as  existing 
throughout  the  state;  that  is,  not  only  in  each  parish,  the 
minister  and  vestrymen  chosen  by  the  members  of  the 
church  were  a  body  corporate  for  their  own  appropriate 
church  and  glebe  ;  but  the  act  recognized  a  convention 
consisting  of  the  settled  ministers  and  deputies  from  the 
different  vestries,  competent  to  self-government.  In  this 
act,  there  was  no  vestige  of  the  former  establishment :  oh 
the  contrary,  it  contained  provisos,  guarding  against  all 
claims  tending  to  that  point.  Nevertheless,  the  current 
set  so  strong  against  the  Episcopal  Church,  from  the  enmity 
of  numerous  professors  of  religion,  not  a  little  aided  by 
opinions  inimical  equally  to  the  Church  and  to  the  societies 
dissenting  from  her,  that  in  the  year  1786,  the  law  was 
repealed,  with  a  proviso  saving  to  all  religious  societies 
the  estates  belonging  to  them  respectively.  In  the  year 
1798,  this  statute  also  was  repealed,  as  inconsistent  with 
religious  freedom.* 

In  this  convention,  the  recommendations  passed  in  New- 
York,  in  October  of  the  preceding  year,  were  adopted,  with 
two  exceptions.  They  refused  the  acceptance  of  the  fourth, 
concerning  the  liturgy,  until  it  should  be  revised  at  the 
expected  meeting  in  Philadelphia  ;  and  in  respect  to  the 
sixth  article  determining  the  manner  of  voting,  they  ob- 
jected to  it  as  a  fundamental  article  of  the  constitution ; 
but  acquiesced  in  it  as  regarded  the  ensuing  convention, 
reserving  a  right  to  approve  or  disapprove  of  its  pro- 
ceedings. 

Their  opinions,  as  to  the  principles  which  should  govern 
in'the  proceedings,  were  detailed  in  instruction  to  deputies 
appointed  by  them  to  the  General  Convention,  and  are  as 
follows  : — 

"  Gentlemen,  during  your  representation  of  the  Protest- 

*  A  law,  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  1784,  so  far  as  if  incorporated  the 
Church  throughout  the  state,  was  passed  by  the  legislature  of  Mar>-[and  in  the 
year  1802,  in  favour  of  the  Roman  Catholics:  which  does  not  appear  to  have 
given  offence,  or  to  have  been  productive  of  bad  effects;  although  the  like  favoiu- 
has  been  refuaed  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  same  state. 

15 


114  Nule  to -page  2'\. 

ant  Episcopal  Cluirch,  \vc  coinmond  to  your  observance 
the  following  sentiments  concernini^  doctrine  and  worship. 
AVc  refer  you,  at  tlie  same  time,  for  these  and  other  objects 
of  your  mission,  to  our  resolutions  on  the  proceedings  of  the 
late  convention  in  New- York. 

"  Uniformity  in  doctrine  and  worship  will  unquestionably 
contribute  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  15ut  we  earnestly  wish  that  this  may  be  pursued 
with  liberality  and  moderation.  The  obstacles  which  stand 
in  the  way  of  union  among  Christian  societies,  are  too 
often  founded  on  matters  of  mere  form.  They  are  sur- 
mountable, therefore,  by  those  who,  breathing  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  earnestly  labour  in  this  pious  work. 

"  From  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves,  rather  than  the 
comments  of  men,  must  we  learn  the  terms  of  salvation. 
Creeds  therefore  ought  to  be  simple  :  and  we  are  not 
anxious  to  retain  any  other  than  that  which  is  commonly 
called  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

"  Should  a  change  in  the  liturgy  be  proposed,  let  it  be 
made  with  caution :  and  in  that  case,  let  the  alterations  be 
few,  and  the  style  of  prayer  continue  as  agreeable  as  may 
be  to  the  essential  characteristics  of  our  persuasion.  Wc 
will  not  now  decide,  what  ceremonies  ought  to  be  retained. 
We  wish,  however,  that  those  which  exist  may  be  estimated 
according  to  their  utility  ;  and  that  such  as  may  appear  fit 
to  be  laid  aside,  may  no  longer  be  appendages  of  our  Church. 
"  We  need  only  add,  that  we  shall  expect  a  report  of 
your  proceedings,  to  be  made  to  those  whom  we  shall  vest 
with  authority  to  call  a  convention." 

The  intercourse  with  the  court  of  Denmark,  noticed  in 
the  proceedings  of  Pennsylvania,  having  been  communi- 
cated by  the  governor  of  Virginia  to  the  body  now  assem- 
bled ;  tlieir  deputies  were  instructed  to  lay  the  same  before 
the  General  Convention. 

This  convention  of  Virginia,  issued  an  address  to  the 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  throughout  the  state;  in 
order  to  excite  a  zeal  for  the  reviving  of  the  communion. 

They  passed  rules,  forty-three  in  number,  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  in  Virginia,  extending  to  a  great 
variety  of  particulars.  In  these  rules  they  made  direct 
provision  for  the  trial  of  bishops  and  other  clergymen  by 
the  convention :  the  matter  concerning  which  there  has 
been  so  much  dissatisfaction,  because  of  its  not  being 
directly  provided  against  by  the  General  Convention  held 
within  a  few  months  after  this  convention  lield  in  Richmond. 


Note  lo  page  27.  115 


O.  Page  27.     Of  the  Convention  in  rhiladelphia  and  Wil- 
mington, in  1786. 

The  Rev.  David  Griffith,  D.  D.  rector  of  Fairfax  parish, 
Alexandria,  Virginia,  who  had  been  elected  to  the  episco- 
pacy in  that  state,  presided  in  tljis  convention.  Francis 
Hopkinson,  Esq.  was  the  secretary.  The  convention  was 
opened  with  a  sermon  by  the  president  of  the  preceding 
convention. 

The  convention  assembled  nnder  circumstances,  which 
bore  strong  appearances  of  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  in 
this  early  stage  of  it.  The  interfering  instructions  from 
the  churches  in  the  different  states — the  embarrassment 
that  had  arisen  from  the  rejection  of  the  proposed  book  in 
some  of  the  states,  and  the  use  of  it  in  others — some  dis- 
satisfaction on  account  of  the  Scottish  Episcopacy — and, 
added  to  these,  the  demur  expressed  in  the  letter  from  the 
English  bishops,  were  what  the  most  sanguine  contem- 
plated with  apprehension,  and  were  sure  prognostics  of 
our  faUing  to  pieces,  in  the  opinion  of  some,  who  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  course  that  had  been  taken  for  the 
organizing  of  the  Church.  How  those  difficulties  were 
surmounted,  will  be  seen. 

In  regard  to  the  interfering  instructions,  they  were  all 
silenced  by  the  motion  that  stands  on  the  journal,  for  refer- 
ing  them  to  the  first  convention,  which  should  meet  fully 
authorized  to  determine  on  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
The  instructions,  far  from  proving  injurious,  had  the  con- 
trary effect;  by  showing,  as  well  the  necessity  of  a  duly 
constituted  ecclesiastical  body,  as  the  futility  of  taking- 
measures,  to  be  reviewed  and  authoritatively  judged  of,  in 
the  bodies  of  which  we  were  the  deputies.  Such  a  system 
appeared  so  evidently  fruitful  of  discord  and  disunion,  that 
it  was  abandoned  from  this  time.  The  author,  who  had 
contemplated  the  meeting  of  the  interfering  instructions 
with  the  motion  recorded  as  his  own  on  the  journal,  was 
especially  pleased  with  the  effect  of  it — the  silence  of  un- 
necessary discussion. 

Between  the  deputies  of  the  churches  which  had  received, 
and  those  of  the  churches  which  had  rejected  the  proposed 
Book,  or  else  been  silent  on  the  subject;  the  expedient  was 
adopted,  of  letting  matters  remain  for  a  time  in  the  present 
state  with  both. 

The  (juestion  of  the  Scottish  Episcopacy  gave  occasion 


116  Xote  to  page  27. 

to  some  warmth.  That  matter  was  struck  at  by  certain 
motions  whicli  appear  on  the  journals,  and  which  {)articu- 
larly  aftected  two  gentlemen  of  the  body  ;  one  of  whom — 
the  llev.  Mr.  Pilmore — had  been  ordained  by  Bishop 
Seabury ;  and  the  other,  the  llev.  William  Smith — the 
younger  gentleman  of  the  convention  of  that  name — had 
been  ordained  by  a  bishop  of  the  Church,  in  which  Bishop 
Seabury  had  been  consecrated.  The  convention  did  not 
enter  into  the  opposition  to  the  Scottish  succession.  A 
motion,  as  may  be  seen  on  the  journals,  was  made  to 
the  effect,  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Provoost,  seconded  by  the 
Rev.  Robert  Smith,  of  South-Carolina,  who  only,  of  the 
clergy,  were  of  that  mind.  But  the  subject  was  sup- 
pressed— as  the  journal  shows — by  the  previous  question, 
moved  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  and  seconded  by  the 
author.  Nevertheless,  as  it  had  been  affirmed,  that 
gentlemen  ordained  under  the  Scottish  succession,  settling 
in  the  represented  churches,  were  understood  by  some  to 
be  under  canonical  subjection  to  the  bishop  who  ordained 
them ;  and  as  this  circumstance  had  been  urged  in  argu- 
ment; the  proposal  of  rejecting  settlements  under  such  sub- 
jection was  adopted ;  although  Mr.  Pilmore  denied  that 
any  such  thing  had  been  exacted  of  him.  As  the  measure 
is  stated  on  the  journal,  to  have  been  carried  on  the  motion 
of  the  author;  he  thinks  it  proper  to  mention,  that  he  never 
conceived  of  there  having  been  any  ground  for  it,  other  than 
in  the  apprehension  which  had  been  expressed.  This  tem- 
perate guarding  against  the  evil,  if  it  shoidd  exist,  seemed 
the  best  way  of  obviating  measures,  which  might  have  led 
to  disputes  with  the  northern  clergy.  The  line  of  conduct 
taken,  drew  oft'  from  the  ineditated  rejection  some  lay  gen- 
tlemen ;  who  would  otherwise  have  warmly  pressed  the  ob- 
jections which  occur,  against  the  circumstance  that  had 
been  imagined. 

The  letter  from  the  English  bishops,  in  answer  to  the 
address  of  the  former  convention,  came  to  hand  not  long 
before  the  meeting  of  this.  All  that  could  be  done  in  the 
present  stage  of  the  business,  was  to  acknowledge  the  kind- 
ness of  their  letter,  to  repeat  the  application  for  the  Epis- 
copacy, and  to  re-assure  them  of  attachment  to  the  system 
of  the  Church  of  England.  This  was  accordingly  done,  in 
a  letter  drafted  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  but  considerably 
altered  on  a  motion  of  the  lion.  John  Jay,  Esq.  who  thought 
the  draft  too  submissive.  It  was  in  substance  an  expression 
oi'  gratitude  for  the   fatherly  sentiments  contained   in   the 


Note  to  i>age  27.  117 

letter  of  tlie  right  reverend  prelates ;  an  assurance  of  there 
being  no  intention  of  departing  from  the  constituent  princi- 
ples of  the  Church  of  England;  an  expectation  that  the 
proposed  alterations  had  been  received  ;  and  a  repetition  of 
the  request  of  the  former  address. 

This  second  application  went  with  no  small  advantage, 
from  the  alterations  made  in  the  constitution,  before  tiie 
receiving  of  the  objections  made  against  it,  on  the  part  of 
the  English  bishops.  The  issue  of  this  branch  of  the  busi- 
ness may  serve,  not  only  for  a  caution  against  being  preci- 
pitate, but  for  encouragement  under  inconveniences  result- 
ing from  the  precipitancy  of  others.  In  the  preceding  year, 
the  points  alluded  to  were  determined  on  with  too  much 
warmth,  and  without  investigation  proportioned  to  the  im- 
portance of  the  subjects.  The  decisions  of  that  day  were 
now  reversed — not  to  say  without  a  division,  but — without 
even  an  opposition. 

The  general  temper  of  moderation  displayed  in  the  letter 
of  the  archbishops  caused  it  to  be  a  matter  of  surprise,  that 
the  only  thing  which  looked  like  a  condition  made  on  the 
subject  of  the  Common  Prayer  Book,  was  the  restoring  of 
the  clause  concerning  the  descent  into  hell,  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed.  The  undeniable  fact,  that  the  clause  had  been  an 
addition  to  the  original  creed,  occasioned  a  criticism  on 
the  expression  in  the  letter — its  "  integrity  ;"  to  which,  it 
was  required  to  be  "  restored."  Besides,  as  the  clause  is 
not  understood  in  the  general  acceptation  of  the  words  ; 
and  as  they  who  hold  it  in  the  strict  sense  must  ground  it 
on  very  uncertain  authority  of  scripture  ;  it  was  thought, 
that  more  stress  was  laid  on  this  particular,  than  the 
comparative  importance  of  the  alteration  merited.  This 
can  be  accounted  for  no  otherwise,  than  by  the  facts  which 
have  been  mentioned.  It  is  true,  that  the  clause  is  stated 
to  have  been  introduced,  in  opposition  to  an  ancient  heresy 
— meaning  the  Apollinarian.  Is  it  necessary,  then,  that 
every  heresy  should  be  denied,  in  so  short  a  formulary  as 
that  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  ^ 

The  members  of  the  convention  were  doubtful,  how  far 
the  restoring  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  was  contemplated  by 
the  archbishops  as  an  essential  condition.  In  that  case,  the 
matter  was  desperate  ;  because,  although  there  were  some 
who  favoured  a  compliance,  the  majority  were  determined 
otherwise  ;  among  whom  were  two  members  present,  who 
had  been  chosen  to  the  Episcopacy  ;  and  who  voted  against 
t.h^  restoration,  as  appears  on  the  journal.     It  was  however 


118  Note  to  yage  21 . 

thought,  that  the  words  did  not  import  absolute  requisition. 
The  author  will  here  record  his  opinion,  afterward  formed 
in  England.  It  is,  that  the  inclination  of  the  archbishops 
on  that  head  was,  not  to  give  any  trouble,  but  only  to  avoid 
any  act  or  omission,  which  might  have  been  an  implicating 
of  themselves  and  of  their  Church.  His  reason  is,  that  in 
one  of  the  conversations  of  Bishop  Provoost  and  himself 
with  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  he  brought  this  matter 
forwards ;  evidently  intending  to  say  as  much  of  it  as  he  did, 
and  no  more;  and  not  wishing  a  discussion  of  the  point. 
What  he  said,  was  to  this  effect : — "  Some  wish  that  you 
liad  retained  the  Athanasian  Creed:  but  I  cannot  say  that 
I  am  uneasy  on  the  subject;  for  you  have  retained  the  doc- 
trine of  it  in  your  liturgy;  and  as  to  the  creed  it?elf,  I 
suppose  you  thought  it  not  suited  to  the  use  of  a  congrega- 
tion." Then,  without  waiting  to  hear  whether  this  were 
the  reason  or  not,  he  passed  to  another  subject;  and  never 
introduced  that  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  again. 

It  was  a  matter  of  wonder,  that  there  was  not  laid  in  the 
letter,  more  stress  on  the  Nicene  Creed,  than  on  the  Atha- 
nasian. To  the  latter,  there  are  other  objections  than  its 
protest  against  Arianism  and  Socinianism :  objections  which 
have  weight  with  many,  who  are  not  either  Socinians  or 
Arians.  It  had  been  expected,  that  the  Nicene,  being  the 
faith  of  the  early  Church,  would  have  been  more  strongly 
insisted  on  by  the  English  bishops  ;  of  whom  not  more  than 
two  or  three — and  perhaps  they  unjustly — were  suspected 
of  being  at  all  inclined  to  the  opinions  alluded  to.  Proba- 
bly the  opposition  to  them,  apparent  in  the  liturgy,  was 
what  principally  gave  satisfaction.  In  what  is  here  said,  it 
is  not  designed  to  hold  up  the  necessity  of  the  use  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  in  the  liturgy,  but  there  is  pleaded  for  the 
making  of  it  a  part  of  the  declared  ftxith  of  the  Church; 
which  may  be  done,  without  a  congregational  repetition  of 
it.  Even  to  this  there  is  no  objection  made.  The  distinc- 
tion is  grounded  on  the  circumstance  that  what  was  suffi- 
cient as  a  symbol  of  profession  in  the  primitive  Church, 
must  be  so  now;  unless  on  the  principle  already  adverted 
to,  of  contradicting  all  errors  in  the  forms  of  our  devotions. 
To  what  this  leads,  is  very  evident ;  or  rather,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  calculate.  The  question  as  to  the  Nicene  Creed 
had  been  determined  in  the  preceding  session. 

The  moderation  of  the  letter  of  the  archbishops  on  the 
subject  of  the  ecclesiastical  constitution,  and  especially  the 
manner  of  the  objection  to  the  part  of  it  which  was  cer- 


Note  to  page  21 .  119 

tainly  exceptionable,  was  universally  acknowledged.  Their 
conduct  was  the  more  agreeable  on  this  account,  that  the 
offence  had  been  done  away,  before  the  receipt  of  their 
letter.  The  silence  of  it  in  regard  to  the  including  of  the 
laity,  gave  a  great  advantage  over  those  of  the  clergy,  who 
were  representing  the  introduction  of  that  order  as  in  oppo- 
sition to  correct  principles  of  ecclesiastical  government. 

The  moderation  which  governed  in  this  convention,  must 
be  conspicuous.  One  principal  reason,  was  the  moderation 
of  the  English  prelates.  They  who  were  thought  the  least 
devoted  to  the  Episcopal  regimen,  acknowledged  the  great 
forbearance  in  their  being  no  such  high  notions  on  the  sub- 
ject, as  had  been  avowed  by  some  of  the  clergy  on  our  side 
of  the  Atlantic.  Added  to  this,  there  was  noticed  the  ab- 
sence of  the  most  distant  intimation,  of  offence  taken  at  the 
presumed  independency  of  the  American  Church.  For 
although  the  bishops  could  not  have  denied  this,  consistently 
with  the  known  principles  of  their  own  Church  ;  yet  it  had 
been  reckoned  on,  as  a  source  of  difiiculty. 

Some  gentlemen,  who  thought  that  the  convention  had 
gone  too  far  as  to  some  points  of  evangelical  doctrine,  were 
liighly  gratified  at  finding  more  zeal  in  that  respect,  than 
perhaps  they  had  calculated  on.  The  author  had  an  op- 
portunity of  seeing  the  operation  of  this  sentiment,  within 
a  few  hours  after  his  receipt  of  the  letter.  There  happen- 
ing to  pass,  near  his  door,  a  worthy  lay-member  of  the  con- 
vention of  1785,  who  had  been  in  the  habit  of  thinking  the 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  not  sufficiently  evangelical, 
he  accepted  of  an  invitation  to  walk  in,  and  hear  the  com- 
munication of  the  bishops.  He  was  highly  delighted  ;  and 
it  is  not  improbable,  that  this  very  circumstance  contributed 
towards  such  a  zeal  for  our  ecclesiastical  system,  as  induced 
the  same  gentleman,  at  his  decease,  which  was  a  few  years 
afterward,  to  bequeath  a  considerable  legacy,  which  fell 
after  the  decease  of  two  relatives  then  living ;  the  income 
to  be  applied  towards  the  support  of  the  bishop  of  the 
Church  in  Pennsylvania. 

There  was  another  incident,  which  contributed  to  render 
the  proceedings  of  the  convention  temperate ;  because  it 
must  have  convinced  them,  that  the  result  of  considerable 
changes  would  have  been  the  disunion  of  the  Church.  The 
incident  alluded  to,  was  the  reading  of  a  memorial  from  the 
convention  in  New-Jersey,  approving  of  some  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  late  General  Convention ;  but  censuring 
others,  and  soliciting  a  change  of  counsels  in  those  particu- 


ISO  Nateio  pa^eTl, 

lars.  The  memorial,  as  was  conjectured  at  the  time,  and 
as  the  author  afterwartl  learned  with  certainty,  was  drawn 
up  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chandler,  of  Elizabeth-Town.  This 
learned  and  respectable  gentleman,  after  having  been  in 
England  during  the  war,  had  returned  to  his  family  and 
former  residence ;  labouring  under  a  cancerous  or  scorbutic 
complaint,  which  had  consumed  a  considerable  proportion 
of  his  face.  He  had  been  designed  for  the  contetnplated 
bishopric  of  Nova-Scotia^  as  the  author  was  afterwards 
informed  by  the  archbislvop  of  Canterbury.  His  complaint 
became  too  bad,  to  admit  of  his  undertaking  the  charge. 
The  same  cause,  rendered  it  impossible  for  him  to  take  an 
active  part,  in  the  organizing  of  the  American  Church.- 
The  author  has  no  doubt,  that  his  letter,  written  on  the 
present  occasion,  was  among  the  causes  which  prevented 
the  disorganizing  of  it. 

For  this  memorial,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  7. 

The  present  state  of  things  induced  the  conventiorr,. 
before  their  adjournment,  to  appoint  a  committee;  vvitl» 
po^wer  to  re-assemble  them  in  Wilmington,  in  the  state  of 
Delaware.  Previously  to  their  adjournment,  they  deter- 
mined on  their  second  address,  already  noticed,  to  the 
English  prelates  :  for  which^  see  the  Appendix,  No.  8. 

Soon  after  the  rising  of  the  convention,  there  came  to 
the  author's  hands  a  letter  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York:  for  which,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  9. 

Shortly  afterward,  there  came  a  letter  from  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  only,  enclosing  a  recently  obtained 
act  of  parliament,  authorizing  the  solicited  consecrationsv 
See  the  Appendix,  No.  10. 

On  the  receipt  of  the  letters,  the  committee  exercised 
the  power  committed  to  them,  of  summoning  the  convention 
to  meet  at  Wilmington  on  tlve  10th  day  of  October. 

On  the  said  day,  the  convention  re-assembled  ;  and.  Dr. 
Griffiths  being  absent,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Provoost  presided. 
But,  before  a  relation  of  what  passed  at  this  meeting, 
occasion  is  taken  to  record  the  comments  generally  made 
on  the  communications  from  England. 

There  was  expressed  general  satisfaction  with  the  testi- 
monials to  be  required  of  those  who  might  come  for  the 
Episcopacy  ;  and  especially  with  the  testimonial  to  be  signed 
by  the  members  of  the  General  Convention.  This  body 
had  not  been  without  their  apprehensions,  that  some  un- 
suitable character,  as  to  morals,  might  be  elected :  and  yet, 
for  them  to  have  assumed  a  control,  might  have  been  ao 


Note  to  page  27.  121 

improper  interference  with  the  churches  in  the  individual 
states.  What  was  demanded  by  the  archbishops,  went  to 
the  point  in  the  general  wish  ;  and  yet,  was  not  to  be  com- 
plained of  or  evaded  by  any  individual. 

The  question  to  be  determined  on  at  the  present  session 
was — VVhether  the  American  Church  would  avail  herself 
of  the  opportunity  of  obtaining  the  Episcopacy;  which  had 
been  so  earnestly  desired,  ever  since  the  settlement  of  the 
colonies  ;  the  want  of  which  had  been  so  long  complained 
of;  and  which  was  now  held  out  in  offer.  When  the  author 
considers  how  much,  besides  the  preference  due  to  Epis- 
copal government,  the  continuance  or  the  restoration  of 
divine  worship  in  the  almost  deserted  churches,  their  very 
existence  as  a  society,  and  of  course  the  interests  of  religion 
and  virtue  were  concerned  in  the  issue,  he  looks  back  with 
a  remnant  of  uneasy  sensation,  at  the  hazard  which  this 
question  run;  and  at  the  probability  which  then  threatened, 
that  the  determination  might  be  contrary  to  what  took 
place. 

On  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  a  committee  were 
appointed.  Those  who  acted  in  the  business  were,  from 
New- York,  Rev.  Dr.  Provoost  and  James  Duane,  Esq.  j 
from  New-Jersey,  Rev.  Uzal  Ogden  and  Henry  Waddell, 
Esq. ;  from  Pennsylvania,  Rev.  Dr.  White  and  Samuel 
Powel,  Esq.;  from  Delaware,  Rev.  Sydenham  Thorne; 
from  Maryland,  Rev.  Dr.  Smith  ;  and  from  South-Carolina, 
Rev.  Robert  Smith.  We  sat  up  the  whole  of  the  succeeding 
night,  digesting  the  determinations  in  the  form  in  which 
they  appear  on  the  journal.  When  they  were  brought  into 
the  convention,  little  difficulty  occurred  in  regard  to  what 
was  proposed  concerning  the  retaining  of  the  Nicene  and. 
the  rejecting  of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  But  a  warm  debate 
arose  on  the  subject  of  the  descent  into  hell,  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed.  Although  this  was  at  last  carried,  agreeably  to  the 
proposal  of  the  committee;  yet  whoever  looks  into  the  jour- 
nal will  see,  that  the  result  was  not  owing  to  the  having  of 
a  majority  of  votes,  but  to  the  nullity  of  the  votes  of  those 
churches  in  which  the  clergy  and  the  laity  were  divided. 

Had  the  issue  been  different,  there  could  have  been  no 
proceeding  to  England  for  consecration  at  this  time,  be- 
cause they  who  went  had  all  along  made  up  their  minds 
not  to  go,  until  the  way  should  be  opened  by  previous  ne- 
gotiation. As  the  matter  now  stood,  there  was  evidently 
no  ground  on  which  the  English  bishops  could  have  rejected 
the  persons  sent,  unless  they  had  made  the  Athanasian  Creed 

16 


122  Note  to  page  27. 

an  essential ;  which  would  not  have  been  warranted  by  the 
feeble  recommendation  of  their  letter,  not  to  say  by  the 
impossibility  of  jiistifyin<^  to  the  world  the  withholding  of 
Episcopal  succession,  for  no  other  reason  than  this,  from  a 
Cluirch  descended  from  their  own,  and  once  a  part  of  it. 
It  is  here  supposed,  that  the  very  awkward  appearance  on 
the  journal  of  the  preceding  vote,  must  have  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  of  those 
whom  he  consulted  ;  for  he  took  occasion  to  remark,  what 
he  thought  the  exceptionable  plan  of  making  the  records  on 
the  journal  so  particular.  His  cautious  avoiding  of  minute 
discussion,  especially  in  the  way  of  censure,  induced  us  to 
account  for  this  remark  in  the  way  stated. 

An  address  to  the  two  archbishops  was  drawn  up  by  this 
eonvention,  to  be  forwarded  by  the  two  bishops  elect  present 
in  it,  who  now  declared  their  intention  of  embarking  for 
England.     See  for  it  the  Appendix,  No.  11. 

It  would  be  a  withholding  of  justice  from  a  highly  deserv- 
ing gentleman,  not  to  notice  his  zeal  and  probably  his  in- 
fluence, in  accomplishing  the  views  of  the  American  Church. 
The  hostility  to  the  Scotch  Episcopacy  had  derived  some 
weight  irom  scruples  on  the  subject,  which  were  communi- 
cated by  Granville  Sharp,  Esq.  the  author  of  many  learned 
publications,  himself  being  of  a  religious  and  amiable  cha- 
racter, and  zealous  for  the  system  of  the  Church  of  England. 
In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Manning,  a  Baptist  minister,  and  presi- 
dent of  Rhode-Island  College,  who  had  been  recently  in 
England,  Mr.  Sharp  had  expressed  his  doubts  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Scotch  Episcopacy,  grounded  on  documents  in 
his  hands,  of  his  grand-father.  Archbishop  Sharp,  who  was 
so  conspicuous  for  his  opposition  to  the  arbitrary  measures 
of  James  II.  Dr.  Manning  had  communicated  the  informa- 
tion in  such  aline,  as  that  it  was  privately  circulated  during 
the  convention  of  1785.  On  its  being  urged  in  conversation, 
advantage  was  taken  on  the  other  side  of  the  singularity  of 
the  channel  of  communication.  This,  however,  was  acci- 
dental; it  not  appearing  that  the  writer  contemplated  any 
public  effect.  He  afterward  watched  the  progress  of  the 
business,  and  gave  his  aid  in  every  step  of  it. 

Before  the  meeting  on  the  adjournment,  there  had  been 
sent  to  the  author  by  Dr.  Franklin,  then  president  of  the 
state,  a  letter  to  him  from  Mr.  Sharp,  manifestino- Christian 
concern  in  the  business  pending,  uneasiuess  at  some  reports 
which  had  reached  England,  of  our  declining  towards  So- 
einianism,  and  satisfaction  from  some  discoveries  which 


Note  to  page  27.  12$ 

contradicted  the  reports.  In  the  letter  to  Dr.  Franklin, 
there  were  extracts  of  letters  written  by  Mr.  Sharp  to  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  evincive  of  interest  taken  in  our 
behalf.  In  some  late  publications  in  England,  there  have 
been  erroneous  statements  of  the  agency  of  Mr.  Sharp. 
For  this  reason,  and  to  manifest  the  (Jiiristian  ztal  of  that 
worthy  person,  his  communications  are  given  in  the  Aj^pen- 
dix,  No.  12. 

Afterward,  when  Bishop  Provoost  and  the  authw  were 
in  England,  they  became  acquainted  with  the  said  worthy 
person,  who  continued  to  interest  himself  for  the  Church. 
On  a  certain  day,  he  made  us  a  visit,  and  expressed  m«ch 
solicitude  on  the  subject  of  our  business,  which  he  supposed, 
irom  its  not  having  been  accomplished  immediately,  to  have 
met  with  some  interruption,  lie  was  on  his  way  to  visit 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  intending,  he  said,  to  remind 
his  grace  of  some  things  by  which  he  seemed  to  stand 
pledged,  considering  the  shape  in  which  the  matter  was 
now  before  him.  Mr.  Sharp  was  thanked  for  his  benevo- 
lent zeal,  but  was  requested  not  to  offer  to  the  archbishop 
any  thing  in  the  way  of  complaint,  and  was  informed  that 
there  was  no  room  for  any;  his  grace  having  intimated 
that  the  short  delay  would  be  only  until  the  ensuing  meeting 
of  parliament.  There  was  also  given  to  Mr.  Sharp  the 
reason  of  this  short  delay,  which  will  appear  in  its  proper 
place. 

Before  the  declaration  made  by  two  of  the  bishops  elect, 
of  their  intention  to  embark  for  England,  there  was  per- 
ceived a  difficulty  likely  to  occur  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Provoost, 
on  account  of  subscription  to  be  made  as  proposed  by  the 
convention  of  1785,  and  considered  as  satisfactory  by  the 
English  bishops.  The  convention  in  New- York  had  held 
in  suspense  the  proposed  liturgy,  including  the  articles. 
This  was  the  faith  and  the  worship  recognized  in  the  con- 
stitution, and  not  yet  adopted  by  the  Church  in  which  Dr, 
Provoost  was  to  preside. 

To  meet  this  difficulty,  the  convention  adopted  the  expe- 
dient of  a  form  to  be  subscribed  by  him,  and  by  any  other 
person  in  the  same  circumstances.  The  form  bound  the 
subscriber  to  the  use  of  the  English  book  of  Common 
Prayer,  except  so  far  as  it  had  been  altered  in  consequence 
of  the  civil  revolution,  until  the  proposed  book  should  be 
ratified  by  the  convention  of  the  state  in  which  the  party 
lived,  and  to  the  use  of  the  latter  book,  when  so  ratified. 
A  promise  to  this  effect  was  signed  by  Dr.  Provoost,  and 


124  Note  to  page  28. 

the  document  is  in  possession  of  the  author.     It  is  part  of 
an  act  of  the  present  convention,  predicated  on  the  requisi- 
tions of  the  archbishops.     See  for  it  the  Appendix,  No.  13. 
The  provision  thus  made  by  the  convention,  did  not  alto- 
gether reheve  Dr.  Provoost  from  the  difficuhy.     Subscrip- 
tion was  to  be  repeated  in   England,    agreeably   to  the 
requisition  of  the  archbishoi)s,  doubtless  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  bishops  generally.     It  was  not  probable,  that 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  would  accommodate  to  an- 
other form,  without  further  consultation,  which  would  at 
least  have  occasioned   trouble   and  delay.     Dr.  Provoost 
candidly  stated  his  situation  in  this  particular  to  the  arch- 
bishop, to  whom  the  disclosure  was  evidently  unexpected. 
After  a  short  pause  the  author  remarked,  that  if  in  England 
any  changes  should  be  made  in  the  ecclesiastical  institutions, 
by  competent  authority,  and  in  themselves  not  contrary  to 
Christian  doctrine,  the  subscription  of  the  clergy  would  not 
— it  was  supposed — be  hindered  by  the  ordination  vows  by 
which  they  were  now  bound.     On  a  look  of  appeal  to  the 
archbishop  for  the  correctness  of  this  sentiment,  he  assented 
to  it  unequivocally.     He  would  never  have  given  a  decision 
on  the  special  case  of  Dr.  Provoost :  but  the  supposed  case 
had  so  evident  a  bearing  on  it,  that  the  scruple  was  dis- 
missed.    It  had  rested  on  the  mind  of  the  doctor,  who,  on 
a  question  of  truth  and  honour,  would  not  have  erred  on 
the  side  of  laxity,  in  regard  to  promise  to  be  pledged. 


H.  Page  28,     Of  Personal  Intercourse  ivitk  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury. 

Sundry  matters  having  passed  in  this  intercourse  which 
may  be  thought  connected  with  the  subject  of  these  sheets, 
the  author  supposes  that  it  may  be  of  use  to  insert  in  this 
place  certain  letters,  which  he  addressed  from  England  to 
the  committee  of  the  Church  in  Pennsylvania,  with  notes 
taken  for  another  letter  intended  to  have  been  written,  if 
an  opportunity  had  offered.  The  committee  were  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Samuel  Magaw,  the  Rev.  Robert  Blackwell,  and  the 
Rev.  Joseph  Pilmore  of  the  clergy ;  and  of  the  laity,  the 
Hon.  Francis  Hopkinson,  Dr.  Gerardus  Clarkson,  and  John 
Swanwick,  Esquire. 


Note  to  page  2Q.  125 

Westminster,  December  6,  1786. 
Gentlemen, 

I  think  it  my  duty,  and  it  is  my  inclination,  to  embrace 
the  earUest  opportunity  of  acquainting  you  with  my  arrival 
in  England,  and  of  the  progress  made,  by  the  blessing  of 
God,  in  the  important  business  of  my  voyage. 

On  Thursday,  the  2d  of  November,  I  embarked  at  New- 
York,  in  company  of  my  worthy  friend  and  brother,  Dr. 
Provoost.  The  next  day  we  left  land.  After  a  passage, 
in  which  we  had  some  tempestuous,  although  for  the  most 
part  pleasant  weather,  we  made  the  lights  of  Scilly,  on 
Monday,  the  20th  of  the  same  month,  and  the  next  day 
landed,  in  good  health,  at  Falmouth.  In  giving  this  account 
of  my  prosperous  voyage,  I  am  happy  in  the  conviction  that 
I  am  writing  to  those  who,  as  well  from  private  friendship, 
as  from  their  interest  in  the  great  concerns  of  the  Church, 
will  rejoice  with  me  on  the  occasion,  and  join  me  in  devout 
acknowledgments  to  Almighty  God. 

Owing  to  sundry  incidents,  we  did  not  reach  the  metropo- 
lis until  Wednesday,  the  29th,  when  we  made  it  our  first 
business  to  wait  on  his  excellency,  Mr.  Adams,  who  politely 
returned  our  visit,  on  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  and 
finding  that  it  was  our  wish  to  be  introduced  by  him  to  his 
grace,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  readily  undertook  the 
office,  and  named  Friday  for  the  purpose.  Accordingly,  on 
that  day  we  accompanied  Mr.  Adams  to  the  palace  of  Lam- 
beth. His  grace  having  received  no  intimation  of  the 
intended  visit,  was  not  at  home.  In  the  evening.  Colonel 
Smith,  the  secretary  of  the  legation,  waited  on  him,  to  re- 
quest the  appointment  of  an  hour:  he  named  twelve 
o'clock,  on  Monday.  At  that  time,  we  again  accompanied 
Mr.  Adams  to  Lambeth,  where  we  had  a  polite  and  con- 
descending reception,  entirely  answerable  to  the  sentiments 
which  we  had  been  taught  to  entertain  of  this  great  and 
good  archbishop. 

After  some  questions  on  his  part  respecting  our  passage, 
we  presented  our  papers :  on  which  we  were  asked — 
Whether  we  expected  another  gentleman,  in  time  to  be 
consecrated  with  us  ?  In  answer  to  this,  his  grace  was 
informed,  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith,  the  only  gentleman 
recommended  by  the  General  Convention  beside  the  present 
company,  would  not,  in  all  probability,  be  over  before  the 
spring.  Here  I  must  note,  that  my  saying  of  this  was  in 
consequence  of  a  letter  received  from  that  gentleman  after 
my  embarkation. 


126  Not€  to  page  28. 

Dr.  Provoost  then  mentioned  that  there  was  a  peculiarity 
in  the  charter  of  his  church,  requiring  his  presence  at  the 
annual  election  at  Easter:  on  which  his  grace  said,  that  he 
had  no  inclination  to  detain  us  so  long,  and  indeed  would 
give  us  no  delay,  provided  our  papers  should  be  found  satis- 
factory, which  he  presumed  would  be  the  case.  But  at  the 
same  time  he  apologized  for  his  postponing  of  our  business 
for  two  or  three  days,  being  engaged  in  some  ecclesiastical 
business,  depending  before  the  privy  council,  and  also  in 
some  concerns  of  a  college,  of  which  he  is  the  visiter.  He 
added,  that  when  this  was  done,  he  would  see  us  again.  In 
the  course  of  the  conversation,  the  archbishop  asked  me, 
whether  I  had  received  the  letter  signed  by  himself  alone, 
in  which  he  had  mentioned  that  three  was  a  sufficient  num- 
ber to  be  sent  for  consecration,  and  whether  we  understood 
it  to  be  the  sentiment  that  three  only  should  come.  On 
his  being  told  that  the  letter  had  been  received,  and  so  un- 
derstood, he  gave  the  reason — That  as  the  present  service 
was  asked  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  consequence  of  an 
extraordinary  exigency,  it  seemed  proper  to  do  no  more  in 
the  affair,  than  the  exigency  required,  and  to  leave  all  sub- 
sequent measures  for  the  continuing  of  our  ministry,  to  be 
taken  among  ourselves. 

This  is,  gentlemen,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  the 
substance  of  the  conversation  ;  and  we  shall  be  daily  in  ex- 
pectation of  renewing  our  intercourse  with  his  grace. 

Having  paid  our  respects  in  the  first  place  to  the  arch- 
bishop, we  were  of  opinion  that  it  was  our  duty  to  wait  on 
the  lord  bishop  of  London ;  his  lordship's  predecessors 
having  been  the  diocesans  of  our  Church  ;  although  we  un- 
derstood, that  the  present  bishop — the  venerable  Dr.  Lowth 
— had  undergone  a  decay  of  his  great  talents,  as  well  as 
laboured  under  gievous  bodily  complaints.  Accordingly  we 
waited  yesterday  on  the  Rev.  Mr.  Eaton,  his  chaplain,  by 
whom  I  had  been  hospitably  entertained  when  formerly  in 
this  country.  Mr.  Eaton,  after  much  conversation  concern- 
ing the  affairs  of  our  Church,  stated  to  us  his  lordship's 
situation,  mentioning,  among  other  things,  his  d(l)ility  of 
mind  to  be  such,  that  although  he  should  answer  a  question 
properly  and  pointedly,  yet  he  might  in  half  an  hour,  forget 
both  the  question  and  the  answer  :  and  his  indisposition  was 
so  considerable,  that  a  morning  might  be  appointed,  and 
yet,  when  the  time  should  come,  his  lordship  might  be  inca- 
pable of  receiving  us.  These  things  he  thought  it  necessary 
to  mention,  but  doubted  not  that  there  would  be  named  an 


Note  to  pa^e  2S.  127 

early  day  for  our  introdaction.  Accordingly,  in  the  evening, 
we  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Eaton,  appointing  to-morrow 
morning  for  the  interview. 

I  have  the  pleasure  of  acquainting  you,  gentlemen,  that 
we  find  from  many,  who  had  conversed  with  the  archbishop 
before  our  arrival,  of  there  not  being  the  least  doubt  of  our 
Church's  having  retained  the  essential  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel,  as  held  by  the  Church  of  England. 

These,  gentlemen,  are  the  particulars,  which  I  have 
thought  it  important  to  convey  to  you.  By  the  next  packet 
I  intend,  if  it  please  God,  to  acquaint  you  with  any  further 
progress  that  may  be  made  in  the  business  committed  to 
me;  and  I  remain,  in  the  meantime,  with  my  prayers  for 
your  health  and  happiness. 

Your  affectionate  brother, 
and  very  humble  servant, 

WM.  WHITE. 
TJie  Committee  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 

in  the  Co7nmonwealth  of  Penmyhania. 

P.  S.  I  trust  there  will  be  no  occasion,  that  my  friends 
should  write  to  me  after  the  receipt  of  this.  But  they  will 
not  expect,  that  in  the  present  stage  of  the  business,  I 
should  fix  the  time  of  my  leaving  England. 


Westminster,  January  1,  1787. 
Gentlemen, 

1  embrace  the  opportunity  of  the  packet  of  this  month, 
to  communicate  to  you  the  present  state  of  the  business, 
on  which  I  am  in  England. 

Between  the  writing  of  my  last  and  our  hearing  from 
the  archbishop,  there  intervened  about  a  fortnight:  during 
which  Dr.  Provoost  and  myself  had  been  informed  by 
several  who  had  seen  his  grace,  particularly  by  the  lord 
bishop  of  Oxford,  that  our  papers  were  satisfactory.  The 
delay  was  accounted  for,  by  certain  business  that  required 
immediate  attention.  At  the  end  of  that  term,  we  received 
an  invitation  from  the  archbishop  to  dine  with  him  on  the 
21st.  We  accordingly  attended  ;  and  had  every  reason  to 
be  satisfied  with  our  reception  and  entertainment.  His 
grace  did  not  introduce  the  subject  of  our  application  to 
him,  until  our  leaving  the  company,  when  he  stepped  aside 
with  us,  and  mentioned,  as  near  as  my  memory  serves,  to 
the  following  effect — That  having,   from  the  beginning, 


128  Note  to  yagc  28. 

consulted  tlic  bench  of  bisliops  on  this  business,  he  was 
desirous  of  takini^  their  opinion,  as  to  the  manner  of  ac- 
complishing it — That  he  iiad  shown  our  papers  to  a  few 
who  were  in  town — That  he  expected  to  see  more  of  them 
in  a  short  time — And  that  he  would  then  see  us  again. 
We  have  not  heard  from  him  since;  for  the  greater  number 
of  the  bishops  are  still  at  their  respective  dioceses,  although 
expected  to  be  in  town  soon. 

In  my  last  I  mentioned  our  intention  of  waiting  on  the 
lord  bishop  of  London,  as  an  instance  of  the  respect  which 
wo  thought  due  from  us,  to  the  successor  of  the  former 
diocesans  of  Atnerica.  We  accordingly  attended  on  the 
day  appointed  by  himself,  and  were  courteously  received 
by  this  celebrated  prelate,  who  expressed  himself  gratifted 
by  our  waiting  on  him,  and  asked  for  our  address,  as  in- 
tending to  see  us  again;  which,  however,  can  hardly  hap- 
pen, as  his  lordship  has  been  since  taken  extremely  ill, 
and,  I  believe,  continues  in  imminent  danger.* 

I  fully  expected  to  have  mentioned  to  you,  gentlemen,  by 
this  opportunity,  the  time  of  the  accomplishment  of  the  pur- 
j)ose,  for  which  you  desired  rae  to  come.  Although  disap- 
pointed in  this,  I  can  express  to  you  my  full  persuasion,  that 
the  delay  does  not  arise  from  any  cause,  which  can  defeat 
our  object. 

With  my  constant  prayers  for  yourselves  and  our  whole 
Church,  1  am,  gentlemen. 

Your  affectionate  brother, 

WM.  WHITE. 
The  Committee  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 

in  Fennsylvania. 

P.  S.  January  2.  This  morning,  the  lord  bishop  of  Lan- 
daff  did  us  the  honour,  on  his  coming  to  town,  to  call  on 
us,  without  waiting  for  our  being  introduced  to  him,  and 
to  desire  us  to  appoint  a  day  for  our  dining  with  him.  I 
mention  this,  to  enable  me  to  confirm  the  sentiment  already 
expressed  ;  because  his  lordship,  not  only  showed  the  utmost 

•  We  probably  saw  thi.s  eminent  man  on  the  last  day  on  which  onr  visit  conU 
have  been  received.  His  appearance  was  that  of  health,  and  he  followed  us  ta 
the  head  of  his  stairs,  witiiout  any  ajipearance  of  debility.  We  understood  th.at 
he  bad  a  violent  return  of  his  disease  (the  stone)  the  next  day;  and  he  died  very 
soon  after  otir  d(>partnre  from  England.  In  the  conversation  of  about  an  hour 
which  we  held  with  him,  lie  made  various  inquiries  concerning  America,  ami 
was  the  most  pointed  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  On  being  informed  of  the  then 
late  act  in  Pennsylvania  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  it,  he  answered  with  strong 
•mphaeia — ^That  is  a  very  good  oieasura. 


jSote  to  page  28.  ]29- 

<^oo(l  will  as  to  our  business,  hut  .seemed  surprised  llmt  it 
was  not  already  finished,  until  we  mentioned  the  reason  of 
the  archbishop,  whom  his  lordship  had  not  seen. 


Westminster,  January  20,  1787. 
Gentlemen, 

I  now  address  you,  with  the  pleasin<T  prospect  of  being' 
soon  able  to  re-embark  for  America,  after  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  business  committed  to  me.  It  is  possible, 
indeed,  that  I  may  arrive  before  the  vessel,  by  which  this 
letter  will  be  conveyed.  Even  in  that  case,  it  may  serve 
for  a  continuation  of  the  narrative  of  the  proceeding-sof  my 
honoured  colleague  and  myself.  And  as  there  is  entire 
harmony  between  us,  both  of  sentiment  and  of  affection,  I 
shall,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  omit  distinguishing  between 
us  in  the  following  account;  using  the  plural  number,  in 
.stating  any  thing  that  was  said  by  either  of  us  on  the 
occasion. 

After  my  last  letter,  v/e  received  from  the  archbisliop, 
through  a  friend  who  had  spoken  to  him  on  the  subject, 
full  satisfaction,  that  the  delay  arose  from  no  other  cause, 
than  his  grace's  waiting  for  the  arrival  of  the  bishops;  and 
that  it  was  his  intention  to  finish  the  transaction  in  time  for 
our  departure  by  the  February  packet ;  it  being  the  oppor- 
tunity, by  which  he  had  understood  from  us,  that  it  was  our 
inclination  to  return. 

The  queen's  birth-day,  and  the  near  approach  of  the 
meeting  of  parliament,  have  brought  to  town  many  of  the 
right  reverend  bench.  Accordingly,  we  received  yesterday 
a  note  from  the  archbishop,  desiring  us  to  call  on  him  this 
morning.  We  attended,  and  had  a  conversation  of  two 
hours;  of  which  it  is  now  my  intention  to  give  you  the 
substance,  as  far  as  my  memory  serves,  and  as  is  connected 
with  the  affairs  of  our  Church. 

His  grace  began  with  expressing  his  hopes  that  we  had 
not  thought  him  inattentive  to  our  business.  He  said,  that 
soon  after  our  arrival,  he  had  mentioned  the  matter  to  the 
king ;  that  the  necessary  powers  from  government  would 
be  soon  obtained;  and  that  the  consecration  should  be 
either  on  the  28th  instant,  or  on  that  day  seven-night ;  and 
that  the  latter  day  the  best  suited  his  convenience,  and 
should  be  made  the  appointment,  provided  it  were  consist- 
ent with  our  intentions  of  returning  by  the  packet. 

After  making  the  suitable  acknowledgments  of  his  sood- 

17 


130  Nute  to  jmge  28. 

iiess,  and  (leclaiiiii]:  our  full  conviction  that  he  lind  used  al? 
possible  expedition,  we  said,  that  tlie  day  after  the  last 
mentioned  Sunday  was  the  intended  time  of  our  de|mrture, 
in  the  event  of  our  being  ready  for  the  packet;  and  that, 
therefore,  we  could  not  press  for  the  matter  to  be  expedited, 
sooner  than  was  convenient  to  his  grace. 

He  tiien  gently  touched  on  the  subject,  in  regard  to  which 
our  last  convention  had  not  complied  with  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  two  archbishops.  He  said,  that  some  were  dis- 
satisfied with  the  omission  of  the  creed  here  alluded  to  ; 
that,  for  his  part,  he  was  not  uneasy  on  the  head,  being 
satisfied  that  the  doctrine  of  the  creed  is  retained  in  many 
places  of  the  Prayer  Book  ;  but  that,  however,  he  did  not 
like  the  manner  in  which  it  appeared  on  the  minutes; 
preferred  the  mode  of  doing  business  used  in  all  the  bodies 
with  which  he  was  ac{juainted;  among  whom,  it  was  cus- 
tomary to  mention  the  business  brought  before  them,  and 
the  result  of  the  debate,  without  specifying  the  votes  of  the 
individual  mend)ers.  AV'hether  his  grace  had  here  a  vievv^ 
to  the  votes  of  those  whom  he  was  addressing  in  regard  to 
the  Athanasian  Creed,  we  did  not  know;  but  the  answer 
which  he  received  was  to  this  purpose — That  if  the  con- 
vention liad  taken  a  wrong  method  in  the  above  particular, 
it  proceeded  from  their  wish  to  show  themselves  open  and 
candid  ;  and  that  the  Church  in  one  of  the  states,  had  in- 
structed their  deputies  to  move  for  the  so  specifying  of  the 
votes. 

His  grace  then  said,  that  in  thebeginningof  the  business, 
there  had  been  many  reports  and  apprehensions  ;  that  this 
required  of  the  bisho|)s  to  be  circumspect ;  and  that  even 
when  our  proeeedings  arrived,  there  were  some  things, 
which  they  could  not  but  wish  otherwise.  And  here,  said 
he,  I  am  not  alluding  to  the  liturgy,  but  to  the  very  easy 
manner  in  which  the  tlcgradation  of  bisho])s  seems  allowed 
to  be  done.  It  was  remarked  to  his  grace,  that  the  offensive 
article  had  been  altered.  He  answered — Yes,  and  much 
for  the  better. 

From  this,  his  grace  passed  to  some  remarks  concerning 
the  Psalter.  He  said,  that  whatever  use  there  might  be. 
in  leaving  out  some  parts  of  the  Psalms,  he  saw  no  propriety 
in  altering  the  connexion,  in  the  manner  in  which  we  had 
done  it.  He  did  not  mean  to  undervalue  the  abilities  of 
those  employed  in  it,  but  thought  it  was  a  work  of  more 
time  and  dilliculty,  than  they  seem  to  have  conceived. 
From  a  desire  of  taking  his  grace's  meaning  precisely  on 


Note  to  page  2b.  I  SI 

this  subject,  it  was  here  mentioned  to  him,  that  if  we  un- 
derstood hin),  he  did  not  object  to  the  omission  of  some 
portions  of  the  Psahns,  from  the  worship  of  the  Church. 
The  reply  was — He  had  not  fully  considered  that  subject  ; 
F.nd  only  meant  at  present  to  remark  on  the  connecting  of 
portions  to2:ether,  in  such  a  manner  as  might  break  the 
connexion,  and  alter  the  sense  of  the  original  compositions  ; 
especially  of  such  of  them  as  are  prophetical.  But  his 
grace  did  not  allege,  that  the  sense  had  been  actually 
altered,  in  any  place. 

Tn  speaking  of  the  liturgy,  the  archbishop  expressed  his 
hopes,  that  it  would  not  be  a  matter  liable  to  alterations,  at 
every  convention.  He  was  answered,  that  although  it  was 
still  submitted  to  the  Church  as  a  proposed  liturgy,  so  as 
to  allow  of  the  correction  of  any  part  of  it,  which  might 
appear,  on  mature  consideration,  to  have  been  hastily  done  ; 
yet  there  were  no  description  of  men  in  this  country,  who 
would  more  object  to  the  leaving  of  the  liturgy  in  so  fluctu- 
ating a  state,  than  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in 
America. 

The  archbishop  took  notice  of  a  want  of  formality,  in 
our  not  having  brought  a  regular  instrument  of  our  election : 
although  he  allowed,  that  our  election  was  fully  implied  in 
the  papers  which  had  been  produced ;  so  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  of  the  fact.  This  naturally  led  us  to  speak  of  the 
forms  of  recommendation,  prescribed  by  the  two  arch- 
bishops. In  respect  to  these  we  ventured  to  declare,  that 
the  Church  at  large  in  America  acknowledged  great  obli- 
gations; and  would  expect  that  their  future  bishops  should 
make  it  a  rule  of  their  conduct.  He  replied,  that  the  ap- 
])ointment  of  persons  to  the  Episcopal  ciiaracter  was  of  the 
highest  consequence;  and  earnestly  wished  that  it  may  be 
managed  with  great  discretion  in  America  ;  and  that  he 
thought  himself  obliged  to  use  the  precautions  which  we 
had  mentioned.  For,  said  he,  gentlemen,  you  were  stran- 
gers to  me ;  although  I  had  heard  you  respectfully  spoken 
of.  At  the  same  time,  there  were  some  who  apprehended, 
that  persons  of  a  very  unsuitable  description  would  be  sent. 
I  thought  it  improbable — he  continued — that  general  and 
particular  conventions  would  unite  in  recommending  such 
.persons ;  and  yet  it  was  my  determination,  that  if  such 
should  be  sent,  and  under  circumstances  carrying  fuU 
evidence  of  the  unsuitableness,  not  to  have  troubled  the 
bishops  with  the  aff'air,  but  to  have  taken  the  brunt  of  a 
refusal  on  nsyselfo     The  answer  was  to  this  effect — That  if 


132  Note  to  page  2b. 

tlieie  had  been  any  dan<;cr  of  such  a  nicasuic,  the  requisi- 
tions of  the  two  archbishops  must  have  operated  as  a  pre- 
vention: that  we  trusted,  however,  there  was  not  a  suflici- 
cnt  number  of  our  brethren,  in  any  state,  capable  of  wil- 
fully imposing  an  improper  character  on  his  grace ;  and 
that,  therefore,  if  any  such  character  had  been  reconi- 
njended,  it  must  have  been  some  years  ago,  and  from  the 
want  of  due  information. 

His  grace,  in  some  part  of  the  conversation,  was  led  to 
speak  of  the  act  of  parliament :  in  respect  to  which,  we  took 
notice  of  the  clause,  requiring  the  consent  of  the  king,  under 
his  sign  manual.  This  clause,  we  told  him,  we  had  under- 
stood from  private  information,  not  to  have  been  in  the  act 
as  |)roposed  by  the  bishops.  We  ventured  to  say,  however, 
that  the  principle  of  the  restriction  was  well  understood  in 
America,  so  as  to  occasion  no  ofience  there.  The  arch- 
bishop answered,  that  it  was  not  in  the  act,  as  proposed  by 
the  bishops,  but  that  he  thought  it  a  very  proj)er  clause,  and 
that  it  was  particularly  acceptable  to  himself;  since  other- 
wise the  matter  would  have  rested  wholly  with  him,  which 
he  did  not  wish. 

He  introduced  a  subject  which  was  unexpected  to  us,  and 
may  influence  measures  in  America.  He  said,  that,  wheii 
bishop  of  Bangor,  he  had  presented  the  bishop  elect  of  the 
Isle  of  Man  to  the  archbishop  of  York  for  consecration ;  and 
that  none  were  concerned  in  the  consecration  besides  the 
archbishop  and  liimself :  that  he  had  set  on  foot  an  inquiry, 
respecting  past  usage  in  the  province  of  York  :  and  that  if 
the  practice  had  been  the  same  in  times  past,  perhaps  it 
might  prove  unnecessary  for  another  gentleman  to  come 
from  America.  In  the  conversation  tliat  ensued  on  this 
head,  it  was  thrown  out  on  our  side,  that  if  the  ancient 
canonical  number  should  be  dispensed  with,  j)erhaps  doubts 
might  subsist  in  the  minds  of  some,  in  regard  to  the  validity ; 
and  that  such  an  apprehension  might  be  j)roductiveof  some 
irregularity  and  inconvenience.  To  this  the  archbishop  re- 
plied, that  the  latitude,  if  left,  would  be  intended  merely  for 
our  accommodation,  but  was  by  no  means  to  prevent  the 
coming  over  of  a  third  applicant,  if  that  should  be  thought 
eligible  by  us. 

I  think  it  a  matter  worthy  to  be  mentioned  in  this  letter, 

that  the  archbishop  informed  us  of  thoughts  entertained  by 

him,  of  giving  to  the  world  a  publication,  relative  to  the 

business  before  us,  stating  tjie  reasons  influencing  him  in 

:thc  measures  which  he  had  adopted.     We  look  the  liberty 


Note  to  -page  28.  133 

•of  expressin<r  our  hearty  approbation  of  the  proposal;  aiul 
as  his  grace  did  not  seem  to  have  come  to  a  detenniiiation, 
we  hoped  tliat  he  would  lind  no  objection  to  it,  on  further 
consideration. 

After  discussing  the  above-mentioned  subjects  more  fully 
than  1  can  be  expected  to  relate,  we  apologized  for  taking 
up  so  much  of  his  grace's  time,  and  arose  to  take  our  leave. 
But  we  were  encouraged  by  the  condescension  shown,  to 
mention,  that  as  the  king  was  to  open  the  parliament  in  a 
few  days,  it  would  be  a  gratification  to  us  to  gain  admittance 
to  the  House  of  Lords,  on  tliat  occasion,  through  the  good 
offices  of  his  grace.  The  archbishop  took  this  freedom  in 
very  good  part,  desired  us  to  consider  him  as  on  terms  of 
friendship,  and  assured  us,  that  he  would  send  us  a  note  of 
admission,  and  express  in  it  the  time,  which  his  majesty 
should  appoint  for  his  coming  to  the  house,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent our  unnecessary  waiting.* 

1  suppose  that  this  incident  reminded  the  archbishop  of  a 
question  which  had  been  asked  him  by  Mr.  Adams,  at  our 
first  interview — Whether  it  would  not  be  proper  for  us  to 
wait  on  the  king;  and  whether,  in  that  case,  the  archbishop 
or  himself  would  be  the  jjroper  person  to  introduce  us.  To 
this  question  the  archbishop  had  answered  at  the  time,  that 
the  first  step  was  for  himself  to  be  satisfied,  before  any  no- 
tice could  properly  be  given  to  the  king.  In  relation  to  this 
subject,  his  grace  now  said,  that  if  we  were  to  be  introduced 
to  the  king,  it  ought  to  be  on  the  ground  of  thankit)g  him, 
for  his  leave  given  for  the  ensuing  consecration,  under  his 
feign  manual;  and  that  whether  this  would  be  liable  to  any 
objection  or  not,  we  must  judge.  We  made  no  scru])lc  to 
answer,  that  there  could  be  no  objection  to  it,  arising  out 
of  the  relations  in  which  we  stood.  He  then  said,  that  he 
supposed  Mr.  Adams  chose  to  introduce  us  himself.  We 
answered,  that  although  the  proposal  originated  with  Blr. 
Adams,  yet  we  believed  he  wished  to  leave  it  to  his  grace 
to  determine  on  the  manner.  To  this  he  replied,  that  he 
would  consider  of  it  further,  and  let  us  know. 

His  grace  then  said,  that  he  was  desirous  of  appointing 
some  day  for  our  dining  with  him  again;  intending  to  ask 
some  of  the  bishops  to  meet  us,  and  also  some  of  our  friends. 
This  led  us  to  ask  his  grace's  opinion,  as  to  the  propriety 
of  our  calling  at  the  houses  of  all  the  bishops ;  in  order  to 
thank  them  for  the  good  office  soon  to  be  done,  through  the 

*  The  promise  was  fuUlllccl. 


134  Nole  to  page  28. 

favour  of  tlic  whole  bench,  although  especially  of  his  grace, 
to  the  Episcopal  (Miurch  in  America.  He  answered,  that 
he  thought  it  proper,  and  that  it  would  be  very  kindly  taken. 

As  the  gentlemen  to  whom  1  am  writing  are  members  of 
the  corporation  for  the  widow's  fund,  it  may  be  proj)er  for 
me  to  inform  them,  that  I  stated  to  his  grace  the  appoint- 
ment of  Dr.  Smith,  J\Ir.  Chew,  and  myself,  for  the  address- 
ing of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel, 
respecting  the  arrears  due  on  their  former  grants.  He 
promised  to  consider  of  the  foundation  of  the  intended  ap- 
plication, and  for  that  purpose,  as  I  had  mentioned  my  being 
I'urnished  with  a  former  abstract  of  the  proceedings  of  our 
corporation,  noticing  the  grants,  he  desired  me  to  send  it  to 
him. 

I  liave  given  you,  gentlemen,  a  long,  and,  I  am  afraid, 
tedious  account  of  this  conversation;  but  I  hope  that  the 
motive  will  excuse  me,  which  is  my  desire  of  your  having 
as  complete  a  view  as  possible,  of  the  accomplishing  of  a 
negotiation  so  important,  as  we  all  conceive,  to  our  commu- 
nion, not  only  of  the  present,  but  also  of  every  future  gene- 
ration. 

That  God  may  bless  the  event,  which,  under  Iks  good 
providence,  is  soon  to  take  place,  is  the  constant  wish  and 
■prayer  of,  gentlemen, 

Your  affectionate  brother, 

and  humble  servant, 

WM.  WHITE. 
The  Committee  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 

in  Pennsjjlvania. 


Materials  for  another  letter  to  the  committee,  if  an  op- 
portunity should  offer,  before  my  reaching  of  Philadelphia, 

Monday,  January  2i)th.  We  received  a  verbal  message 
irom  the  archbishop,  desiring  us  to  call  on  him.  We  at- 
tended. His  design  was  to  ask  some  questions  respecting 
the  forms  of  our  testimonials,  and  the  titles  to  be  given  t© 
^is,  in  our  letters  of  consecration.  We  staid  w  ith  him  nearly 
two  hours,  and  had  much  conversation  with  him,  concerning 
the  affairs  of  our  Church  ;  which  confirmed  us  in  our  high 
t)pinion  of  his  regard  for  her,  and  of  his  desire  to  advance 
the  interests  of  religion. 

Friday,  February  2d.  The  mornings  of  the  two  preced- 
ing days  had  been  spent  in  visiting  the  different  l)ishoj)s  who 
were  in  town;  agreeably  to  the  proposal  before  made  to  the 


^ote  to  page  28.  J35 

srchbishoii.  A  few  of  them— the  archhislioj)  of  York,  and 
Elie  bishops  of  Oxford,  Laudafi;  Rochester,  a\n\  Kaiiiror',  had 
previously  visited  us;  and  we  had  seen  the  bisliops  of  Wor- 
cester and  Exeter,  a  few  days  before,  at  the  archbishop's, 
at  dinner;  an  occasion  which  I  have  not  particidarly  noticed', 
because  nothin<;-  passed  on  it,  interestin<;  to  our  mission.* 
Those  of  the  bishops  whom  we  found  at  home,  seemed  to 
take  the  compliment  in  g-ood  part,  expressed  great  good- 
will to  our  Church,  and  wished  that  our  longer  stay,  after 
their  coming  to  town,  had  permitted  their  showino-  of  us 
attentions. t  ° 

On  this  day  we  waited  on  the  archbishop,  in  consequence 
of  his  own  appointment  at  our  former  interview,  in  order 
to  accompany  him  to  court.  Thither  we  went  together  in 
his  coach.  On  being  introduced  to  the  king,  I  made  this 
preconceived  address— That  "  we  were  happy  in  the  oppor- 
tunity of  thanking  his  majesty,  for  his  license  granted  to  his 
grace  the  archbishop,  to  convey  the  E])iscopal  successioii 
to  the  Church  in  America."  The  king  made  this  answer, 
which  I  set  down  to  show  the  kindness  of  the  archbishopj 
— "  His  grace  has  given  me  such  an  account  of  the  gentle- 
men who  have  come  over,  that  I  am  glad  of  the  present  op- 
portunity of  serving  the  interests  of  religion."     His  majesty 


fn  1,.  .  occasion,  we  witnessed  a  sHigular  ceremony,  v,l,ich  we  supposed 

to  be  a  remnant  of  the  state  of  former  times.  Soon  in  the  morninir,  we  had  re 
ceived  a  note  from  the  archbishop,  intimating,  tliat  the  then  day  of  die  week  was 
his  public  day,  during  the  session  of  parhament;  and  that  he  should  be  glad  to  see 
us  on  any  weekly  day  so  mentioned-on  tliat  day  in  particular,  if  disen-aaed 
We  waited  on  him,  and  supposed  IVorn  what  we  saw,  that  the  several  eminent 
persons  who  entered  came  uninvited  as  to  that  particular  time.  Before  dinner 
the  archbishop  rose  bowed  to  the  company,  and  left  the  room.  They  followed 
all  ol  tliem,  no  doubt,  besides  ourselves,  understanding  the  transaction  After 
passing  through  a  saite  of  rooms,  we  found  ourselves  in  the  chapel :  in  which 
were  the  two  chaplains  in  their  surplices.  One  of  them  read  the  litanv  afte- 
which,  we  returned  to  the  room  wherein  we  had  been  received.  Soon  alterward 
we  were  called  to  dinner.  It  is  probable,  that  such  a  visit  on  some  Wednesday 
-It  vvas  the  vveeldy  day-during  the  session  of  parliament,  is  expected  of  twerr 
member  of  either  house,  who  lives  in  habits  of  acquaintance  with  the  primate 
R^L  7n  "  r.'''  ^'^^"^'  '»c'"ding  the  prayers  attached  to  it  in  the  En-Ii.h 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  none  other,  seems  a  remnant  of  former  pracTice 

has  beeS  reTilld"'""     ^  "  ^"''""'  ""'""     ^'  "  "'  ^'"^  ^^^°""'  '^'^'  tl/inciclent 
t  The  prelates  whom  we  found,  were  the  archbishop  of  Yoik,  tJie  bishon  of 
Rodiestei    the  very  aged  bishop  of  Carlisle,  in  whom  vie  saw  the  vv  '  ck  o  '  Ene 
of  thehi-st  scholars  of  the  age,   and  the  bishops  of  Salisbury,  Bristol,  and  Ely 
The  first  mentioned  of  these  three,  since  bishop  of  Durham,  conm  ended  tl; 
moderation  manifested  m  our  service  for  the  fourth  of  July.     This  was  SiVin. 
as  It  had  been  pronounced  by  some  on  our  side  of  the  Atlantic,  that  th"  said  seV 
AmerrnChuS  "^"^"'  ^° '"'^"^^  ^  rejection  of  the  Application  of  the 

nlale^!  '"''^  ^^  presumed,  however,  that  sucii  civility  is  the  usual  courtesj-  of  the 


1 3G  Note  io  jjagc  26. 

then  asked  Dr.  Provoost,  wliptlier  the  Episcopal  communion 
were  not  numerous  in  New- York,  and  was  answered  by  the 
Doctor  in  the  allirmative,  with  further  thanks  for  the  license 
»?ranted.  The  kinii'  then  passed  to  the  next  in  the  circle, 
and  after  a  little  while  we  withdrew,  with  the  archbishop.* 

We  had  contemplated  this  measure  of  waiting  on  the 
king,  as  of  peculiar  delicacy.  Tn  tiie  character  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  we  should  have  thought  it 
inconsistent  in  us  to  have  made  any  application  to  the  civil 
autiiority  of  Groat-Britain.  The  act  of  parliament,  had 
laid  on  the  archbishop  the  obtaining  of  the  consent  of  the 
king,  under  his  sign  manual.  This  consent  had  been  ob- 
tained before  our  going  to  court;  and  therefore  we  saw  no 
impropriety  in  the  visit. 

Sunday,  February  4tth.  We  attended  at  the  palace  of 
Ijambeth,  for  consecration.  The  assistants  of  the  arch- 
})ishop  on  the  occasion,  were  the  archbishop  of  York,  who 
presented ;  and  the  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and  the  bishop 
of  Peterborough,  who  joined  with  the  two  archbishops  in 
the  imposition  of  hands.  It  was  particularly  agreeable  to 
us,  to  see  among  them  the  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  be- 
cause we  had  all  along  understood,  that  in  the  beginning, 
this  aged  and  venerable  prelate  had  entertained  scrujdes  on 
the  subject  of  the  application  of  our  Church:  and  it  was 
])rincipally  owing  to  his  lordship,  that  such  a  point  was  made 
of  the  descent  into  hell,  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  We  pre- 
sumed that  his  dilliculties  were  now  removed.  Dr.  Drake, 
one  of  the  archbishop's  chaplains,  preached;  and  Dr.  Ran- 
dolph, the  other  chaplain,  read  the  prayers.  The  sermon, 
was  a  sensible  discussion  of  the  long  litigated  subject  of  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  to  ordain  rites  and  ceremonies. 
The  text  was — "  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in 
order."  1  Cor.  xiv.  40.  The  discourse  had  very  little 
reference  to  the  peculiarity  of  the  occasion.  The  truth  was, 
as  the  archbishop  had  told  us  on  Friday,  on  our  way  to 
coint,  that  he  had  spoken  to  a  particular  friend  to  compose 
a  sermon  for  the  occasion,  and  had  given  him  a  sketch  of 
what  he  wished  to  be  the  scope  of  it.     This  friend  had  just 

*  While  we  were  waiting  in  our  places,  until  the  king  should  come  to  ns  in  liig 
passing  from  one  attendant  to  another,  there  occurred  an  additional  instance  of  the 
attention  of  the  archbishop  to  the  delicacy  of  our  situation.  When  the  king 
speaks  to  you,  said  he,  yon  will  only  bow ;  adding,  with  a  smile — when  an  Eng- 
lish bishop  is  presented,  he  docs  something  more.  This  alluded  to  the  ancient 
form  of  doing  homage  ibr  his  barony  on  his  knees.  We  were  aware  of  the  dif- 
ferent circnmstanccH  in  which  we  stood  ;  but  it  was  considerate,  to  guard  againsH 
the  danger  of  mistake. 


Note  to  page  28.  137 

sient  him  information  of  a  domestic  calamity,  which  would 
excuse  him  from  attendance;  and  the  archbishop  was  then 
under  the  necessity  of  giving  a  short  notice  to  one  of  his 
chaplains. 

The  consecration  was  performed  in  the  chapel  of  the 
palace  of  the  archbishop,  in  the  presence  of  his  family  and 
his  household,  and  very  few  others ;  among  whom  was  my  old 
friend,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Duche.  1  had  asked  the  archbishop's 
leave  to  introduce  him;  and  it  was  a  great  satisfaction  to 
me  that  he  was  there;  the  recollection  of  the  benefit  which 
I  had  received  from  his  instructions  in  early  life,  and  a 
tender  sense  of  the  attentions  which  he  had  shown  me 
almost  from  my  infancy,  together  with  the  impressions  left 
by  the  harmony  which  had  subsisted  between  us  in  the 
discharge  of  our  joint  pastoral  duty  in  Philadelphia,  being 
no  improper  accompaniments  to  the  feelings  suited  to  the 
present  very  interesting  transaction  of  my  life.  1  hope, 
that  I  felt  the  weight  of  the  occasion.  May  God  bless  the 
meditations  and  the  recollections  by  which  I  had  endea- 
voured to  prepare  myself  for  it;  and  give  them  their  due 
effect  on  my  temper  and  conduct,  in  the  new  character  iu 
which  1  am  to  appear  ! 

The  solemnity  being  over,  we  dined  with  the  archbishop 
and  the  bishops  ;  and  spent  with  them  the  remainder  of  the 
day.  I  took  occasion  to  mention  to  his  grace  my  conviction, 
that  the  American  Church  would  be  sensible  of  the  kindness 
now  shown ;  and  my  trust,  that  the  American  bishops, 
besides  the  usual  incentives  to  duty,  would  have  this  in 
addition;  lest  the  Church  of  England  should  have  cause  to 
regret  her  act,  performed  on  this  day.  He  answered,  that 
he  fully  believed  there  would  be  no  such  cause;  that  the 
prospect  was  very  agreeable  to  him ;  that  he  bore  a  great 
affection  for  our  Church;  and  that  he  should  be  always 
glad  to  hear  of  her  prosperity  ;  and  also  of  the  safe  arrival 
and  the  welfare  of  us  individually. 

After  spending  the  remainder  of  the  evening  very  agree- 
ably, we  took  our  leave,  which  was  affectionate  on  both 
sides ;  and  on  our  part,  with  hearts  deeply  sensible  of  the 
regard  which  had  been  shown  to  our  Church,  and  of  the 
personal  civilities  which  we  had  received.* 

*  During  dinner  this  day  at  Lambeth,  we  were  surprised  at  a  conversation  in- 
troduced by  the  bishop  of  Peterl)orough.  We  had  been  accustomed  to  think  it  a 
sort  of  adjunct  to  the  claim  of  churchmanship  to  consider  the  "  E<k.&v  Bsio-za/km" 
or  "  Royal  Portraiture"  as  a  true  expression  of  the  feelings  of  king  Charles  I,  in 
some  of  the  most  trying  circumstances  of  his  life.    The  bishop  remarked,  and  iiis 

18 


13S  Noic  to  'paga  28. 

Mondiij/,  Fehrunrij  'yth.  As  an  oviJence  of  his  srace's- 
<}elicary,  I  (iepo.-il  tlio  acroniil  of  I'eo^,  bronirlit  to  us  this 
inoniiiii^  by  his  socrotary ;  and  givo  tire  followiiii^  narrative 
of  the  manner  in  which  that  business  was  conducted. 

On  tlio  morning  of  our  visit  to  coitrt,  I  mentioned  to  the 
archbishop,  agreeably  to    preconcert  with    Dr.  Provoost, 
that  there  must  necessarily  have  been  some  charges  for  the 
expenses  of  oflice,  in  carrying  the  business  of  our  Churcli 
ihrotigh  the  civil  department;  and  requested  to  know  tlie 
amount,  that  we  might  discharge  it.     The  archbishop  an- 
swered, that  if  he  should  inform  us  on  that  point,   it  must 
he  on  the  principle,  that  in  an  affair  of  no  great  magnitude, 
it  might  seem  disrespectful  to  us,  to  withhold  the  satisfaction 
demanded.     He  added,  that  on  the  occasion  of  the  conse- 
cration of  an  English  bishop,  there  were  vei-y  considerable 
expenses  to  different  persons  of  the  archbishop's  court  and 
of  his  household;  wjiich  expenses  he  thought  improper  on 
the  present  occasion,  and  should  therefore  prohiliit  them. 
After  the  consecration,  he,  within  our  hearing,   informed  a 
gentleman  from  Doctors'  Commons,  Robert  Jenner,  Esq. 
who  had  attended  officially  in  his  civil  law  robe,  with  a  view 
to  the  local  registry,  that  as  we  intended  to  leave  London 
the  next  day,   our  papers  must  be  ready  in  the  morning. 
On  the  gentlem-an's  answering,  that  he  would  wait  on  us 
with  them,  the  archbishop  replied — No;  you  arc  to  bring 
them  to  my  secretary,  who  will  wait  on  them:  evidently 
with  the  design,  that  the  pecuniary  part  of  the  transaction 
should  pass  under  his  own  control.     The  fees  paid  by  us 
jointly  amounted  to  £l4tSs.  hi.  being  altogether  in  the  line- 
of  pid>lic  offices,  and  which  the  archbishop  must  have  paid,, 
but  for  the  request  made  on  our  part. 

For  the  instrument  of  consecration,  recorded  in^  the- 
archicjiiscopal  registry,  see  Appendix,  No.  14. 

On  the  morning  of  the  day  of  our  leaving  of  the  city,  I 
received  a  note  from  the  archbishop.  Although  it  begins 
with  a  message  of  civility  to  a  respectable  divine  in  New- 
Jersey,  not  long  before  in  England,  I  take  the  prominent 
object  to  have  been  the  conveying  of  information,  guarding 
against  an   impression  which  might  have  been  made  by 


hrethren  assented  to  tlie  position,  tliat  the  contrary  was  now  clearly  proved,  by  s 
late  publication  of  some  papers  of  Lord  Clarendon.  These  papers,  it  was  said, 
show  the  work  to  have  been  written  by  Bishop  (iauden.  The  simplicity  of  the 
3tyle  of  the  work,  and  the  contrary  property  said  to  be  discernible  in  the  writing* 
of  that  bishop,  aro  the  circumatancos  wJiich  inclined  Mr.  Huroe  to  give  the  credit 
«>rthe  composition  to  the  kinf . 


Note  tv  page  2S.  1 31) 

■what  had  passed  concerning  consecration  in  the  province 
■of  York.  The  note  shall  be  given,  becanse  of  its  bearing- 
on  the  question  concerning-  the  number  required  for  conse- 
cration in  the  English  Church.  See  the  Appendix,  No.  15. 
There  being  in  possession  some  documents  in  the  civil 
Ikie,  sustaining  facts  mentioned  in  the  statements,  the 
present  opportunity  is  improved  to  the  perpetuating  ot 
them.     They  are, 

(1)  A  letter  from  his  excellency  Ricliard  Henry  Lee, 
Esq.  president  of  Congress,  to  his  excellency  John  Adams, 
Esq.  minister  plenipotentiary  to  the  court  of  Great-i5ritain. 

(2)  A  letter  from  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Lee,  in  ansv^cr. 

(3)  A  letter  from  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  Mr. 
Adams,  after  an  interview  between  them. 

(4)  A  certificate  of  the  supremo  executive  council  of 
Pennsylvania. 

(5)  A  certificate  of  his  excellency  Governor  Patrick 
Henry,  of  Virginia. 

In  reference  to  the  last  two  documents,  and  to  a  similar 
one  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Provoost,  given  by  his  excellency 
Governor  Clinton,  of  New- York,  but  not  in  possession,  it  is 
to  be  recollected,  that  they  were  to  be  applied  for  in  conse- 
quence of  an  instruction  of  the  General  Convention.  They 
may  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  had  an  effect  in  ac- 
complishing the  views  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  See  the 
Appendix,  No.  16. 

It  was  in  the  statements,  that  Richard  Peters,  Esq.  hav- 
ing visited  England  on  private  business,  was  requested  by 
the  committee  of  the  convention  to  wait  on  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  on  the  business  concerning  which  the  Enghsh 
prelates  had  been  addressed.  The  consequent  letter  of  Mr. 
Peters  to  the  committee  has  a  tendency  to  throw  light  on 
the  subject,  and  is  therefore  given  in  the  Appendix,  No.  17 


* 


*  There  being  nothing  more  in  the  letters  to  tfie  committee  concerning  the 
claim  of  the  corjjoration  of  the  Widows'  Fund,  the  silence  seems  to  require  a 
reason.  The  abstract  was  sent  to  the  archbishop,  agreeably  to  his  desire.  In  the 
next  interview  he  remarked,  that  he  perceived  the  evidence  of  the  promise  of  the 
society  in  England,  but  wished  to  know  to  what  period  the  society  in  America 
considered  it  as  extending.  The  author  had  not  been  informed  on  that  point  by 
the  committee,  and  made  answer  accordingly.  The  undertaking  of  the  settling 
of  this  would  have  involved  him  in  no  less  a  difficulty,  than  that  of  determining  at 
what  period  American  allegiance  ceased.  If  it  were  on  the  4th  of  July,  177G, 
there  could  be  no  claim  beyond  that  day,  on  a  fund  appropriated  by  charter  to 
the  dominions  of  the  British  crown.  On  the  other  hand,  to  have  dated  inde- 
pendence from  the  acknowledgment  of  it  by  Great-Britam,  would  have  been  in- 
consistent with  American  citizenship.  Accordingly,  nothing  more  passed  on  the 
subject.    It  should  be  noticed,  that  to  tiie  former  period  there  was  very  little  due. 


140  Note  to  page  30. 

We  left  London  on  the  evening  of  the  5th  of  February, 
reached  Falmouth  on  the  10th,  were  detained  there  by  con- 
trary winds  until  Sunday  the  17th,  when  we  embarked,  and 
after  a  voyage  of  precisely  seven  weeks,  landed  at  New- 
York  on  the  afternoon  of  Easter  Sunday,  April  the  7th; 
sensible,  I  trust,  of  the  goodness  of  God  in  our  personal 
protection  and  safety,  and  in  his  having  thus  brought  to  a 
prosperous  issue  the  measures  adopted  for  the  obtaining  of 
that  Episcopacy,  the  want  of  which  had  been  the  subject  of 
the  complaint  of  our  Church  from  the  earliest  settlement  of 
the  colonies,  and  which,  we  hope,  will  be  now  improved  to 
her  increase,  and  to  the  glory  of  her  divine  Head. 


I.  Page  30.     Of  the  Convention  in  1789. 

The  business  was  to  have  been  preceded  by  a  sermon 
from  Bishop  Provoost;  but  the  bishop  being  detained  by 
indisposition,  Dr.  Smith  preached.  The  only  bishop  pre- 
sent presided,  and  the  secretary  was  Francis  Hopkinson, 
Esq. 

Previously  to  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  it  was  fore- 
seen that  the  unfinished  business  of  the  Episcopacy,  and  the 
relative  situation  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  would  be 
the  principal  objects  of  attention,  and  must  be  thought  im- 
portant, not  only  in  themselves,  but  because  of  the  influence 
which  each  of  them  had  on  the  other.  It  maybe  proper  to 
say  something  of  these,  before  an  entry  on  the  narrative  of 
what  passed  concerning  them  in  the  convention. 

There  is  an  implication — at  least  the  author  had  always 
so  understood  it — in  the  address  to  the  English  prelates, 
that  the  American  Episcopal  Church  was  to  obtain  from 
them  the  beginnin":  of  the  succession  in  the  mimber  of 
bishops  competent,  according  to  the  English  rule  and  j)rac- 
tice,  to  perpetuate  it.  Doubtless  this  sentiment  was  much 
strengthened  by  the  consideration  of  the  antiquity  and  the 
expediency  of  the  rule,  which  required  the  presence  and 
the  consent  of  three  bishops  in  every  consecration.  Although 
it  had  been  the  clear  sense  on  both  sides,  that  the  American 
Church  was  entirely  independent  of  the  Church  of  England  ; 
yet,  on  this  point  of  procuring  from  England  the  canonical 
number  of  bishops,  the  promise  seemed  to  have  been  volunta- 
rily pledged,  so  that  the  English  prelates  might,  in  the  event 
of  non-compliance,  have  laid  the  charge  of  imposition.    It  is 


Nole  to ])aii-e 'SO  lil 

Crne,  tiie  archbishop  of  Canterbury  seems  not  to  have  bcea 
tenacious  of  the  canonical  number,  as  appears  from  what  he 
said  of  a  consecration  for  the  Isle  of  Man,  related  in  the 
author's  letter  from  England.  Yet  his  grace  was  careful 
to  correct  his  mistake  in  regard  to  that  measure,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  note  written  by  him  to  the  autJjor,  on  the  day 
on  which  he  left  London.  If  some  of  the  archbishop's 
brethren,  of  the  right  reverend  bench,  should  have  been 
found  stricter  than  himself  on  points  of  this  nature,  there 
was  no  responsibility  on  him,  and  the  blame  would  have  lain 
on  those  who  had  dispensed  with  the  ancient  number  in 
America.  There  may  be  acknowledged  another  reason  for 
being  particular  on  this  point;  it  is  the  guarding  against 
the  mischievous  consequences  of  a  disposition  to  irregu- 
larity in  any  future  American  bishop,  who  might  have  less 
concern  for  the  peace  and  theorder  of  the  Church,  than  tor 
the  sustaining  of  his  consequence  with  a  jjarty. 

In  regard  to  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  it  had  been  all 
along  an  object  with  the  author,  which  he  never  endeavoured 
to  conceal,  to  bring  its  Episcopacy  within  the  union.  liut 
as  the  Scotch  succession  could  not  be  oUicially  recognized 
by  the  English  bishops,  he  wished  to  complete  the  succession 
from  England,  before  such  a  comprehension  should  take 
place.  He  knew,  indeed,  that  Bishop  Provoost,  althouyh 
lie  did  not  appear  to  be  possessed  of  jicrsonal  ill-will  tr) 
15ishop  Seabury,  was  opposed  to  having  any  tiling  to  do  with 
the  Scotch  succession,  which  he  did  not  hesitate  to  pronounce 
irregular.  Yet  he  w^as  very  little  sup])orted  in  this  senti- 
ment; and  least  of  all,  by  the  clergy  of  his  own  diocese.  It 
was  therefore  natural  to  infer,  that  he  would  see  the  exj)e- 
diency  of  what  was  the  general  wish,  or  at  least  waive  his 
objection  for  the  sake  of  peace  ;  as  indeed  hapj)ened.* 

Although  these  subjects  would  of  course  have  engaged 
the  attention  of  the  convention,  yet  an  aj^plication  which 

*  In  the  last  preceding  convention  of  the  Churcii  in  New-York,  tliey  had  de- 
clared their  desire,  as  well  in  favour  of  the  succession  in  the  English  line,  as  for  a 
union  of  the  Church  throughout  the  United  States,  with  an  evident  allusion  lolhc 
Scotch  Episcopacy.  What  is  now  referred  to,  are  the  two  following  resolves, 
•passed  unanimously  on  the  5tli  of  November.  17P8. 

"  Rcsohed,  That  it  is  highly  necessary  in  the  opinion  of  this  convention,  that 
measures  should  be  pursued  to  preserve  the  Episcopal  succession  in  the  English 
line — and 

"  Resolved  also,  That  the  union  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  is  of  ^rreal  importance  and  much  to  be  desired;  and  that 
the  delegates  of  this  state,  in  the  next  General  Convention,  be  instructed  to  pro- 
mote  that  union  by  every  prudent  measure,  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  the 
iChurch,  and  the  eontinuaiace  of  the  F.piscopa!  succession  in  the  Lni^liih  Iluo.' 


142  Note  to  pai>-e  30. 

came  from  the  Cliiircli  in  Massachusetts,  addressed  to  each 
of  the  three  bishops,  and  received  by  the  author  a  few  days 
before  the  assembling  of  tlie  convention,  brouglit  the  matter 
forward  in  a  very  strong  point  of  view.  The  object  of  tlie 
address,  was  the  procuring  of  the  consecration  of  the  Jlev. 
Edward  Bass  of  the  said  state,  as  the  concurrent  act  of 
the  three  bishojis. 

For  the  application  from  Massachusetts,  and  for  the 
testimonial  of  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Seabury,  see  the 
Appendix,  No.  18. 

The  author,  had  some  time  before  written  to  Dr.  Parker, 
of  Boston,  that  he  considered  the  clergy  of  Massachusetts 
as  peculiarly  situated ;  in  consequence  of  their  never  having 
been  concerned,  either  in  the  application  to  England,  or  in 
that  to  Scotland:  so  that  they  had  it  in  their  power  to  act 
the  part  of  mediators,  in  bringing  the  clergy  of  Connecticut 
and  those  of  the  other  states  together.  Dr.  Parker  has 
since  repeatedly  declared,  and  it  is  in  a  letter  under  his 
hand,  that  this  hint  was  the  origin,  and  that  the  promoting 
of  the  measure  mentioned  was  the  motive,  of  the  application 
for  the  consecration  of  Mr.  Bass.  Dr.  Parker,  even  after 
the  favourable  close  of  the  subsequent  session,  vvhicli  lie 
had  attended,  intimated,  that  the  object  of  the  application 
having  been  accomplished,  he  and  his  brethren  would  be 
indifferent  as  to  any  thing  further.  A  confirmation  of  this 
appeared  soon  afterwards,  in  the  resignation  of  Mr.  Bass. 

The  application  was  received  but  a  few  days  before  the 
meeting  of  the  convention,  and  very  soon  engaged  the 
notice  of  that  body  ;  who,  from  the  beginning,  manifested  a 
strong  desire  of  complying  with  it.  This  put  their  president 
in  a  very  delicate  situation  ;  standing  alone  as  he  did  in  the 
business,  and  as  president  of  the  assembled  body.  Many 
speeches  were  made,  which  im})lied,  that  the  result  of  the 
deliberation  must  involve  the  acquiescence  of  the  two  bi- 
shops of  the  English  line;  while  it  was  thought  by  the  only 
one  of  them  present,  that  no  determination  of  theirs  would 
warrant  the  breach  of  his  faith  impliedly  pledged,  as  he 
apprehended,  in  consequence  of  measures  taken  by  a 
l)receding  convention.  Accordingly,  he  took  occasion  to 
state  to  several  of  the  members,  in  the  intervals  of  the 
meetings,  the  difficulty  under  which  he  lay.  They  urged 
the  necessity,  which  they  thought  the  Church  was  under ; 
and  as  to  the  inq)lication  involved  in  the  first  address  to 
the  English  bishoj)s  ;  they  said  it  was  intended  at  the  time, 
but  prevented  by  unexpected  occurrences  in  the  case  of 


Note  to  page  30.  143 

Dr.  Griffith.  On  the  oj)posito  side,  no  such  necessity  was 
j)erceivecl ;  and  as  to  the  resignation  of  Dr.  (xritHth,  another 
might  he  chosen.  He  had  heen  himself  chosen  after  the 
date  of  tiie  letter  to  the  English  bishops.  The  issue  of 
these  conferences,  were  the  resolves  on  the  journal  of  this 
session,  with  a  reference  to  the  difficulty  stated,  and  the 
directing  of  an  address  to  the  English  prelates;  which  was 
accordingly  drawn  up,  as  it  stands  on  the  journal  of  the 
next  session. 

For  the  resolves  and  the  address  to  the  archbishops,  see 
the  Appendix,  iVo.  19. 

The  author,  on  being  consulted  in  regard  to  this  expe- 
dient, saw  an  objection  to  it  in  the  call  v»'hich  it  made  on  the 
said  prelates,  to  declare  an  opinion  on  the  subject  of  the 
Scotch  Episcopacy.  Perhaps  they  might  not  agree.  Even 
if  their  opinion  should  be  favourable,  it  must  be  in  ojiposi- 
tion  to  the  positive  provisions  of  acts  of  parliament,  and 
therefore  would  not  be  officially  given.  For  his  part,  the 
only  way  in  which  he  was  to  be  affected  by  the  measure  in 
contemplation,  was  the  being  relieved  at  the  present  time, 
from  the  pain  of  standing  opposed  to  the  wishes  of  the  con- 
vention. 

The  measure  was  adopted;  and  this  seems  the  proper 
place  of  mentioning  the  result  of  it.  When  Bishop  Madi- 
son went  to  England,  in  the  following  summer,  for  conse- 
cration; the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  informed  him,  and 
desired  him  to  inform  the  author,  as  president  of  the  con- 
vention, that  he  (the  archbishop)  had  drawn  up  an  answer, 
the  sending  of  which  would  be  rendered  unnecessary  by  his 
(Bishop  Madison's)  coming.  The  archbishop  read  the 
answer  to  him;  remarking,  that  it  was  painful  to  him  to  be 
in  such  circumstances,  as  required  him  to  speak  or  write  in 
terms  which  were  not  an  explicit  declaration  on  the  subject. 
In  short.  Bishop  Madison  said,  that  the  archbishop,  in  the 
answer,  left  the  matter  as  he  found  it :  which  was  what 
might  have  been  expected  from  the  caution  of  his  character, 
and  from  the  circumstances  of  peculiar  delicacy,  attending 
this  subject.* 

*  In  an  interview  with  the  archhishop,  he  expressed  himself  to  Bishop  Madison 
to  the  following  effect,  as  appears  from  a  communication  of  the  latter  to  the  author, 
dated  December  19,  1790:  from  which  the  other  particulars  are  also  taken—"  A 
few  days  before  I  left  London,  the  archbishop  requested  a  particular  interview 
with  me.  He  said,  he  wished  to  express  his  hopes,  and  also  to  recommend  it  to 
our  Church,  that  in  such  consecrations  as  might  take  place  in  America,  the  per- 
sons who  had  received  their  powers  from  the  Church  of  England  should  be  alone 
concerned.    He  spoks  with  great  delicacy  of  Dr.  Seabury  ;  but  thought  it  most 


14 1  Note  to  page  30. 

Tlint  so  little  !)iisino?s  was  transacted  in  tliis  session  of 
the  (;onv(MUioii,  may  bo  seen  from  the  journal  to  have  been 
owino^  to  the  adjoiirnniont,  made  lor  the  express  purpose  of 
invitiii«'  the  clergy  ol' Connecticut  to  meet  the  convention  in 
S(;ptond)er  ;  an  object  which  it  was  expected  would  be  pro- 
moted by  the  conviction  generally  prevailing  in  the  conven- 
tion, that  the  formerly  proposed  constitution  was  inadequate 
to  the  situatio!!  of  this  Church,  and  by  the  new  constitution 
entered  on  the  journal  of  this  session.  On  this  business,  the 
president  of  the  convention  met  the  committee  but  once, 
and  interested  himself  very  little ;  being  desirous,  that  what- 
ever additional  powers  it  might  be  thought  necessary  to  as- 
sign to  the  bishops,  such  powers  should  not  lie  under  the 
reproach  of  having  been  pressed  for  by  one  of  the  number, 
hut  be  the  result  of  due  deliberation,  and  the  free  choice  of 
all  ordei-s  oi"  persons  within  the  Church,  and  given  with  a 
view  to  hor  good  government.* 

advisabli?,  tlnit  the  line  of  bishops  shoald  be  handed  dowa  from  those  w  ho  had 
received  their  cominission  from  the  jauie  source." 

It  Wiis  aCiervvards  supposed,  that  tiie  sense  of  the  archbishop  was  fiiHy  accom- 
plished by  the  presence  and  the  assistance  of  tiic  canonical  number  of  the  English 
lino;  ami  the  umtter  was  so  understood  by  Eishop  Madison.  Besides,  the  ques- 
tion had  changed  its  ground,  by  the  repeal  of  the  laws  against  the  Scottish  bishop3; 
and  by  their  reception  in  their  proper  character,  in  England.  This  happened, 
after  llishop  Madison's  visit  to  that  country. 

*  During  the  session  there  took  place  in  the  house  of  the  author,  tlie  decease 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Gritfith,  of  Virginia.  The  respect  entertained  for  him  by  the  con- 
venlion,  apjiears  in  the  arrangements  made  for  attendance  on  his  funeral  as  re- 
corded on  the  journal.  lie  had  been  much  indisposed  from  the  day  of  his  arrival. 
I  lis  (hMtli,  however,  was  in  one  sense  sudden,  and  certainly  unexpected  to  the 
very  aiile  physician  who  attended  liim,  and  with  whom  he  had  been  in  long  habits 
of  acquaintance.  His  disorder  was  tJie  inflammatory  rheumatism,  wliich  passed 
to  his  head  during  sleep.  The  following  statement  is  thought  due  to  the  memory 
of  a  resjiectable  divine,  who  had  manifested  great  zeal  for  the  organizing  of 
the  (;hurch. 

It  lias  been  reported,  and  had  weight  on  some  minds  in  a  more  recent  election 
to  the  I'.jiiscopacv.  that  he  had  been  under  the  necessity  of  resigning,  on  account 
of  his  having  been  elected  in  haste,  and  without  due  notice.  The  contrary  is  here 
known,  and  can  be  proved  by  documents  in  possession.  His  election  was  in 
Mav,  17PS.  Some  private  concerns,  and  the  not  being  supj)lied  u\\h  monev, 
pre\eiited  his  crossing  of  the  Atlantic,  with  the  two  who  crossed  it  in  November 
of  that  year.  In  May.  1767,  about  a  year  after  his  election,  and  about  a  month 
after  the  return  of  the  bishops  consecrated  in  England,  there  was  held  a  conven- 
tion in  Virginia,  from  the  printed  journal  of  which  the  following  is  an  e.xtract:— ^ 

"  Hi'sulriil.  'I'hal  the  standing connnittee,  without  delay,  request  of  the  Right 
Rev.  Dr.  White,  bislnq)  of  tiie  Protestant  Episcoptd  Church  in  the  commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Right  Uev.  Dr.  Provoost,  bishop  of  the  said  Church  in 
the  st;it('  of  j\cw-VorU.  thattlu'v,  or  either  of  th<Mn,  admit  to  consecration  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Gritlith.  nominated  by  the  last  convention  bisluq)  of  the  Church  in  this  state.'' 

The  standing  coimnittee  were  the  Rev.  Dr.  Madison,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bracken, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  t^hield,  the  Hon.  John  Blair,  Mr.  Page,  ofRosewell,  and  Mr.  An- 
ilrews.  The  prominent  applicant  to  the  American  bishops  was  Dr.  ftladison, 
who  was  al'terwards  bisho)).  The  principle  on  which  the  bishops  declined  com- 
pliance, has  been  set  forth  in  its  proper  place  ;  being  their  opinion,  tlialthey  were 
pledged  to  their  first  obtaining  of  three  bishopa  from  England, 


Note  iu  page  30.  145 

In  the  second  session,  the  clergy  who  came  from  the 
eastward,  besides  Bishop  Seabury,  were  two  of  his  presby- 
ters, Mr.  Hubbard  and  Mr.  Jarvis,  from  Connecticut,  and 
Dr.  Parker,  from  Massachusetts.  AW  things  now  appeared 
to  tend  to  an  happy  union. 

But  a  danger  arose  from  an  unexpected  question,  on  the 
very  day  of  the  arrival  of  these  gentlemen.  The  danger 
was  on  the  score  of  politics.  Some  lay  members  of  the 
convention — two  of  them  were  known,  and  perhaps  there 
were  more,  having  obtained  information  that  Bishop  Sea- 
bury,  who  had  been  chaplain  to  a  British  regiment  during 
the  war,  was  now  in  the  receipt  of  half-pay,  entertained 
scruples  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  admitting  hini  as  a 
member  of  the  convention.  One  of  the  gentlemen  took  the 
author  aside,  at  a  gentleman's  house  where  several  of  the 
convention  were  dining,  and  stated  to  him  this  difficulty. 
His  opinion — it  is  hoped  the  right  one — was,  that  an  ecclesi- 
astical body  needed  not  to  be  over-righteous,  or  more  so 
than  civil  bodies,  on  such  a  point — that  he  knew  of  no  law 
of  the  land,  which  the  circumstance  relative  to  a  former 
chaplaincy  contradicted — that  indeed  there  was  an  article 
in  the  confederation,  then  the  bond  of  union  of  the  states, 
providing  that  no  citizen  of  theirs  should  receive  any  title 
of  nobility  from  a  foreign  power  ;  a  provision  not  extending 
to  the  receipt  of  money ;  which  seemed  impliedly  allowed, 
indeed,  in  the  guard  provided  against  the  other — that 
Bishop  Seabury's  half-pay  was  a  compensation  for  former 
services,  and  not  for  any  now  expected  of  him — that  it  did 
not  prevent  his  being  a  citizen,  with  all  the  rights  attached 
to  the  character,  in  Connecticut — and  that  should  he  or  any 
person  in  the  like  circumstances  be  returned  a  member  of 
Congress  from  that  state,  he  must  necessarily  be  admitted  of 
their  body.  The  gentleman  to  whom  the  reasoning  was 
addressed,  seemed  satisfied,  and  either  from  this  or  from 
some  other  cause,  the  objection  was  not  brought  forward. 
The  author  very  much  apprehended,  that  the  contrary  would 
happen,  not  because  of  the  prejudices  of  the  gentleman  who 
addressed  him  on  the  subject,  but  because  of  those  of  an- 
other, who  had  started  the  difficulty. 

On  the  day  succeeding  that  of  the  above  conversation, 
the  committee  was  appointed,  as  stated  on  the  minutes,  to 
confer  with  the  eastern  gentlemen,  on  a  plan  of  union. 
They  met  in  the  evening,  and  found  no  difficulty  in  joining 
in  the  report,  as  made  the  next  day  in  the  convention.  The 
subsequent  adoption  of  the  report,  with  the  reservation  as 

19 


1 46  Note  to  page  30. 

to  the  negative  of  the  bisho})s,  leads  to  the  remark,  tiiat 
from  the  sentiments  exj3iesse(l  in  the  debate,  there  is  rea- 
son to  beheve  that  the  fidl  negative  would  have  been  allowed, 
had  not  Mr.  Andrews,  from  Virginia,  very  seriously,  and 
doubtless  very  sincerely,  expressed  his  apprehension,  that 
it  was  so  far  beyond  what  was  expected  by  the  Church  in 
his  state,  as  would  cause  the  measure  to  be  there  disowned. 
The  desire  that  Mr.  Andrews  had  all  along  shown  to  effect 
the  union,  and  the  good  temper  with  which  he  had  treated 
every  subject  of  discussion,  gave  th^  greater  force  to  his 
apprehensions:  the  consequence  of  which  was,  the  referring 
of  the  subject  of  the  full  negative  to  some  subsequent  Gene- 
ral Convention,  to  be  determined  according  to  instructions 
from  the  conventions  in  the  several  states.  The  eastern 
gentlemen  acquiesced,  but  reluctantly,  in  this  compromise. 
Had  there  been  no  more  than  their  apprehension  of  laws 
passing  by  a  majority  of  four-fifths,  after  a  non-concurrence 
of  the  bishops,  the  extreme  improbability  of  this  would — it  is 
thought — have  been  confessed  by  them.  But  the  truth  is — 
they  thought  that  the  frame  of  ecclesiastical  government 
could  hardly  be  called  Episcopal,  while  such  a  matter  was 
held  out  as  speculatively  possible.* 

For  the  constitution  as  proposed  by  the  session  of  July 
and  August,  and  as  acceded  to  in  this  session  by  Bishop 
Seabury  and  the  presbyters  from  Connecticut  and  Boston, 
see  the  Appendix,  No.  20. 

No  sooner  had  the  convention  divided  into  two  houses, 
than  an  incident  happened  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  which  had  an  unpropitious  influence  on  all 
that  followed;  and  as  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  both 
houses  was,  in  many  points,  owing  to  this  incident,  occasion 
is  taken  to  relate  it,  on  recollection,  after  having  been  an 
hearer  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  at  the 
time. 

'  The  caseof  Mr.  Andrews,  of  Virginia,  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  laxity  in  regard 
to  due  order  and  discipline,  under  which  it  was  necessary  to  begin  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church.  He  was  a  first  cousin  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews,  with  whom 
and  witii  the  author  he  had  been  a  student  in  the  college  of  Philadelphia.  At  the 
time  in  (piestion,  he  was  a  professor  in  the  college  of  Williamsburg,  in  Virginia. 
Although  in  priests'  orders,  he  had  discontinued  his  ministry,  and  acted  in  some 
civil  employments  of  responsibility,  with  repnlation.  lie  was  a  very  sensible 
and  a  very  amiable  man,  in  iiis  temper  and  deportment.  He  had,  doubtless,  in 
Bome  way  reconciled  his  departure  from  the  clerical  character,  with  a  sincere 
desire  of  settling  the  concerns  of  the  Church,  and  of  contributing  his  best  endeav- 
ours to  that  elfoct.  Certain  it  is,  that  they  were  directed,  not  to  the  pulling  down, 
but  to  the  builditig  up  of  the  Church,  the  ministry  of  which  he  had  forsaken. 
Probably  he  was  the  easier  reconciled  te  this  measure,  by  the  almost  total  pros 
Iration  of  the  Church  in  Virginia  during  th«  war  of  the  revolution. 


Note  to  pa;re  30.  I47 

in  the  appointment  of  comtnittees  on  tlio  different  depart- 
ments of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Dr.  Parker  prooosed 
that  the  English  book  should  be  the  ground  of  the  proceed- 
ings held,  without  any  reference  to  that  set  out  and  proposed 
in  1785.  This  was  objected  to  by  some,  who  contended, 
that  a  liturgy  ought  to  be  formed,  without  reference  to  anv 
existing  book,  although  with  liberty  to  take  from  any,  what- 
ever the  convention  should  think  fit.  The  issue  of  the  de- 
bate, was  the  wording  of  the  resolves  as  they  stand  on  the 
journal,  in  which  the  different  committees  are  appointed, 
to  prepare  a  morning  and  evening  prayer — to  prepare  a 
litany — to  prepare  a  communion  service — and  the  same,  in 

regard  to  the  other  departments,  instead  of  its  being  said 

to  alter  the  said  services;  which  had  been  the  lan^-uaoe  in 
1785.  "     "^ 

This  was  very  unreasonable  ;  because  the  different  con- 
gregations of  the  Church  were  always  understood  to  be  pos- 
sessed of  a  liturgy,  before  the  consecration  of  her  bishops, 
or  the  existence  of  her  conventions.  It  would  have  been 
thought  a  strange  doctrine  in  any  of  the  clergy,  had  they 
pretended  that  they  were  released  from  all  obligation  to  the 
use  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  by  the  revolution.  It 
is  true,  that  Dr.  Parker  had  carried  the  matter  too  far,  in 
speaking  of  the  proposed  book,  as  a  form  of  which  they 
could  know  nothing,  considering  that  it  had  been  proposed 
by  a  preceding  convention  from  a  majority  of  the  states. 
It  was  particularly  wondered  at  in  Dr.  Parker,  by  those 
who  knew  that  he  had  used  the  book  in  his  own  church  at 
Boston.  But  as  the  doctor,  during  the  precedin.rr  part  of 
the  session,  had  been  looked  to  for  the  opening  of  the  sen- 
timents of  the  clergy  present  from  Connecticut,  who  had 
said  but  little  all  along,  and  evidently  depended  on  him,  to 
press  the  points  which  they  had  most  at  heart,  it  is  proba- 
ble, that  in  this  instance,  he  accommodated  more  than  was 
either  necessary  or  well  considered,  to  make  matters  affree- 
able  to  their  minds.  The  direct  course  would  have  been, 
to  have  taken  the  English  liturgy,  as  that  in  which  some 
alterations  were  contemplated;  and  with  it,  the  other  as  a 
proposal,  agreeably  to  what  was  expressed  in  the  title  pao-e. 
Certain  it  is,  that  the  extreme  j)roposed  tended  very  much 
to  the  opposite  extreme,  which  took  effect — an  evident  im- 
plication in  all  the  proceedings  of  the  house,  that  there 
were  no  forms  of  prayer,  no  offices,  and  no  rubrics,  until 
they  should  be  formed  by  the  convention  now  assenjbled. 
Every  one  must  perceive,  that  this  abridged  the  species  of 


148  Note  tu  page  ^{i. 

negative,  lod<re(l  with  the  House  of  Bishops.     For  if,  in  any 
branch  of  the  liturgy,  they  should  be  disposed  to  be  tenacious 
in  any  point,  which  should  be  a  deviation  from  the  English 
book,   the  consequence   must  be,  not  that  the  prayer,  or 
whatever  else  it  were,  remained  as  before,  but  that  no  such 
matter  were  to  be  inserted.     This,  in  some  instances,  would 
have  operated  to  the  extent  of  excluding  a  whole  otlice  of 
the  Church,  if  ihe  negative  of  the  bishops  had  been  insisted 
on.     They  did  not  carry  their  right  so  far,  but  they  rea- 
soned and  expostulated  on  the  point,  with  several  of  the 
gentlemen,  to   no  purpose.     They  would  not  allow  that 
there  was  any  book  of  authority  in  existence:  a  mode  of 
proceeding,  in  which  they  have  acted  differently  from  the 
conventions  before  and  after  them  :  who  have  recognized 
the  contrary  principle  when  any  matter  occurred  to  which 
it  was  applicable.     If  that  adopted  by  the  majority  of  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  had  been  acted  on  by 
the  clergy   and  by  the   individual   congregations,    on   the 
taking  place  of  the  civil  revolution,  it  would  have  torn  the 
Church  to  pieces.     On  the  contrary,  the  idea  had  prevailed, 
that  although  the  civil  part  of  the  institution  was  destroyed, 
and  each  Christian  minister  lay  under  the  necessity  to  dis- 
charge the  scriptural  duty  of  praying  for  his  civil  rulers  ac- 
cording to  his  individual  discretion  ;  the  rest  of  the  service 
remained  entire,  on  the  ground  of  antecedent  obligation. 

The  forms  of  proceeding  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  con- 
sisting of  two  only — Bishop  Provoost,  although  ahsent, 
being  considered  as  making  up  the  constitutional  numher — 
were  soon  settled.  They  were  drafted  by  the  author,  and 
he  seized  the  opportunity  of  preventing  all  discussions  at 
any  time — for  this  he  hoped  for  as  the  effect — on  the  point 
of  precedency ;  by  resting  the  matter  on  the  seniority  of 
Episcopal  consecration  :  which,  of  course,  made  Bishop 
Seabury  the  president  of  the  house.  This  regulation,  was 
agreeable  to  the  judgment  of  the  author;  which  is  not 
altered,  although  a  different  principle  was  adopted  at  the 
next  convention,  and  acted  on  for  a  time.  The  only  plau- 
sible objection  heard  to  the  other — which,  however,  lies 
equally  against  that  afterward  adopted — is  the  possible 
case  of  the  presidency's  devolving  on  a  bishop,  who  may 
be  disqualified  for  the  duties  of  it,  by  mental  or  by  bodily 
infirmities.  But  in  this  case,  a  vice-president,  or  a  presi- 
dent pro  tempore,  might  be  appointed. 

The  principal  act  of  this  session  was  the  preparing  of 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  now  the  established  liturgy 


]\'ule  to  pui^e  .30.  I49 

of  the  Church.  It  will  not  be  noticed  any  further,  than, 
on  the  ground  of  information  possessed,  to' account  for  the 
doing  or  for  the  omitting  of  any  important  matter.  The 
journal  shows,  that  some  parts  of  it  were  drawn  up  bv 
the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  and  other  parts 
of  it,  by  the  House  of  Bishops.  In  the  latter,  owing  to  the 
smallness  of  the  number  and  a  disposition  in  both  of  them 
to  accommodate,  business  was  despatched  with  great  ce- 
lerity;  as  must  be  seen  by  any  one  who  attends  to  the 
progress  of  the  subjects  recorded  on  the  journal.  To  this 
day,  there  are  recollected  with  satisfaction,  the  hours  which 
were  spent  with  Bishop  Seabury  on  the  important  .'subjects 
which  came  before  them ;  and  especially  die  Christian 
temper  which  he  manifested  all  along. 

In  the  daily  prayer  for  morning  and  evening  service; 
the  principal  subjects  of  difference  arising  between  the  two 
houses,  were  the  Athanasian  Creed,  and  the  descent  into 
hell  in  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

On  the  former  subject,  the  author  consented  to  the  pro- 
posal of  Bishop  Seabury,  of  making  it  an  amendment  to 
the  draft  sent  by  the  other  house  ;"to  be  inserted  with  a 
rubric,  permitting  the  use  of  it.  This  however  was  declared 
to  be  on  the  principle  of  accommodation,  to  the  many  who 
were  reported  to  desire  it,  especially  in  Connecticut ;  where, 
it  was  said,  the  omitting  of  it  would  hazard  the  reception 
of  the  book.  It  was  the  author's  intention,  never  to  read 
the  creed  himself;  and  he  declared  his  mind  to  that  effect. 
Bishop  Seabury,  on  the  contrary,  thought  that  witliout  it, 
there  would  be  a  difficulty  in  keeping  out  of  the  Church 
the  errors  to  which  it  stands  opposed.  In  answer  to  this, 
there  were  urged  the  instances  of  several  churches,  as  the 
Lutheran  and  others  in  this  country  and  in  Europe;  and 
above  all,  the  instance  of  the  widely  extended  Greek 
Church,  confessedly  tenacious  of  the  doctrine  af  the  Nicenc 
Creed;  and  yet  not  possessed  of  the  Athanasian  in  any 
liturgy,  or  even  of  an  acknowledgment  of  it  in  any  confes- 
sion of  faith.  Of  the  last  mentioned  instance.  Bishop  Sea- 
bury entertained  a  doubt :  but  the  fact  is  certainly  so ;  as 
is  attested  by  the  Rev.  John  Smith,  an  English  divine  held 
in  estimation ;  who  wrote  "  an  account  of  the  Greek 
Church,"  with  the  advantage  of  having  resided  in  Con- 
stantinople. He  says  (p.  196)  after  mention  of  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed  and  the  Nicene— "  as  to  that  of  St.  Athanasius, 
they  are  wholly  strangers  to  it."  However,  the  creed  was 
inserted  by  way  of  amendment ;  to  be  used  or  omitted  at 


150  Note  to  page  30. 

discretion.  But  the  aiuendinent  was  negatived  by  the 
other  house:  and  when  the  subject  afterward  came  up  in 
conference,  they  would  not  allow  of  the  creed  in  any  shai)e ; 
which  was  thought  intolerant  by  the  gentlemen  from  INew- 
England  ;  who,  with  Bishop  Seabury,  gave  it  up  with  great 
reluctance. 

The  other  subject — the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell — was 
left  in  a  situation,  which  afterwards  not  a  little  embarrassed 
the  committee,  who  had  the  charge  of  printing  the  book. 
The  amendments  of  the  bishops,  whether  verbal  or  other, 
to  the  services  sent  to  the  other  house,  had  all  been  num- 
bered. The  president  of  that  house,  as  afterwards  aj)- 
peared  on  un<iaestionable  verbal  testimony,  accidentally 
omitted  the  reading  of  the  article  in  its  full  force,  with  the 
explanatory  rubric.  The  meaning  of  the  article  in  that 
place,  was  declared  to  be  the  state  of  the  dead,  generally: 
and  this  was  proposed,  instead  of  the  form  in  which  the 
other  house  had  presented  it,  in  italics  and  between  hooks, 
with  a  rubric  permitting  the  use  of  the  words — "He  went 
into  the  place  of  departed  spirits."  The  paper  of  the 
house,  in  return  to  that  of  the  bishops,  said  nothing  on  this 
head ;  and  therefore  their  acquiescence  was  presumed. 
This  might  have  been  the  easier  supposed;  as  there  were 
some,  who,  while  they  thought  but  little  of  the  importance 
of  inserting  such  an  article,  were  yet  of  opinion,  that  the 
convention  stood  pledged,  on  the  present  subject,  to  the 
English  bishops :  it  being  the  only  one  on  which  they  had 
laid  much  stress,  in  stating  the  terms  on  which  they  were 
willing  to  consecrate  for  our  Church;  and  we  having  com- 
plied with  their  wishes,  in  that  respect.  This  would  seem 
very  unsuitably  followed  by  a  repetition  of  the  offensive 
measure,  or  something  very  like  it,  in  the  first  convention 
held  after  the  consecration  had  been  obtained.  Thus,  the 
matter  passed  without  further  notice.  Jiut  Bishop  Seabury, 
before  he  left  the  city,  conceived  a  suspicion,  that  there 
had  been  a  misunderstanding.  For  on  the  evening  bcibre 
his  departure,  he  took  the  author  aside  from  company,  and 
mentioned  his  apprehension  ;  which  was  treated  as  ground- 
less, on  the  full  belief  that  it  was  so.  It  was  a  point 
which  Bishop  Seabury  had  much  at  heart;  from  an  opinion, 
that  the  article  was  put  into  the  creed,  in  opposition  to  the 
ApoUinarian  heresy;  and  that,  therefore,  tiie  withdrawing 
of  it  was  an  indirect  encouragement  of  the  same.  The 
author  saw  no  such  inference;  but  wished  to  retain  the 
article,  on  the  ground,  that  the  doing  so  would   tend  to 


Ao/e  to  page  30.  151 

peace;  that  it  would  he  actins;  consistently  towards  tiie 
English  Church;  and  that  a  latitude  would  he  lett  hy  the 
proposed  ruhric,  for  the  understandiuii,-  of  the  article  as 
referring  to  the  state  of  departed  spirits,  geneially.  It  is 
curious  to  remark  by  the  way,  that  when  the  book  came 
out,  Bishop  Provoost  disliked  the  Ibrm  in  which  this  part 
of  it  aj)peared,  more  than  either  the  article  as  it  stood 
originally,  or  the  omitting  of  it  altogether  :  on  the  principle, 
that  it  exacted  a  belief  of  the  existence  of  departed  spirits, 
between  death  and  the  resurrection.  So  easy  is  it,  in  ex- 
tending latitude  of  sentiment  on  one  side,  to  limit  it  on 
another. 

However,  when  the  committee  assembled  to  prepare  the 
book  for  the  press,  great  was  th.eir  surprise  and  that  of  the 
author,  to  find  that  the  two  houses  liad  misunderstood  one 
another  altogether.  The  question  was — what  is  to  be 
done.'*  And  here,  the  different  principles  on  which  the 
business  had  been  conducted,  had  their  respective  operation. 
The  committee  contended,  that  the  amendment  made  by 
the  bishops  to  the  service  as  proposed  by  their  house,  not 
appearing  to  have  been  presented;  the  service  must  stand 
as  proposed  by  then),  with  the  words  "  he  descended  into 
hell"  printed  in  italics  and  between  hooks;  and  with  the 
rubric  permissory  of  the  use  of  the  words — "  he  went  into 
the  place  of  departed  spirits."  On  the  contrary  it  was 
thought  a  duty  to  maintain  the  principle,  that  the  creed, 
as  in  the  English  book,  must  be  considered  as  the  creed  of 
the  Church,  until  altered  by  the  consent  of  both  houses; 
which  was  not  yet  done.  Accordingly,  remonstrance  was 
made  against  the  printing  of  the  article  of  the  descent  into 
hell,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  appears  in  the  book  pub- 
lished at  that  time. 

When  the  convention  afterwards  met  in  New- York,  in  the 
year  1792,  this  matter  came  in  review  before  them  :  and  the 
result  was  the  ordering  of  the  creed  to  be  printed  in  a!f 
future  editions,  with  the  article  not  in  italics  and  between 
hooks  as  before;  but  with  the  rubric  leaving  it todiscretiorj 
to  use  or  to  omit  it ;  or  to  use,  instead  of  it,  the  words  con- 
sidered by  the  rubric  as  synonymous.  Some  such  compo- 
sition seemed  to  be  rendered  absolutely  necessary  by  exist- 
ing circumstances. 

The  importance  given  to  this  article  by  the  requisition  of 
the  English  prelates,  and  the  litigation  which  it  lias  conse- 
quently undergone  in  our  conventions,  induce  the  being 
particular  in  regard  to  it.     Therefore,  as  the  delivery  of 


I'V3  Note  to  page  ^(i. 

opinion  on  tlio  subject  will  fall  within  the  design  of  these 
sheets  ;  it  is  proposed  to  recur  to  it  ai^ain,  before  the  finish- 
ing- of  remarks  on  the  transactions  of  this  convention. 

As  cunnected  with  the  morning  and  evening  prayers,  the 
reading  psalms  come  under  notice  in  this  place;  and  the 
following  information  is  to  he  given  concerning  them. 

Tile  House  of  Jiishops  did  not  approve  of  the  expedient 
of  the  other  house,  in  relation  to  the  selections  as  they  now 
stand ;  to  he  used  at  the  discretion  of  the  minister,  instead 
of  tiie  psalms  for  the  day.  But  Bishop  Seabury  interested 
himself  in  the  subject  the  less  ;  as  knowing,  that  neither 
himself  nor  any  of  his  clergy  would  make  use  of  the  alterna- 
tive, but  that  they  woidd  adhere  to  the  old  practice.  For 
the  author's  part,  he  disliked  the  course  taken,  from  the 
opinion,  that  it  was  less  likely  to  be  satisfactory  than  another 
expedient  suggested  by  him,  for  the  improving  of  this  part 
of  the  service,  which,  in  his  opinion,  called  for  it  more  than 
any  other.  The  expedient,  was  to  give  to  the  officiating 
minister  the  liberty  to  select  psalms  at  his  discretion.  This 
would  be  attended — he  thoucjht — with  the  advantage  of 
breaking  the  jiractice  of  reading  the  psalms,  without  any 
regard  to  their  suitableness  to  the  general  circumstances 
and  state  of  mind  of  a  mixed  congregation,  and  yet,  not 
hazard  such  capricious  omissions  of  particular  passages 
as  might  be  construed  by  some  into  a  disrespectful  treat- 
ment of  holy  writ,  and  thus  prevent  all  improvement  in 
this  branch  of  tlie  service.  Another  consequence  would  be, 
that,  the  number  and  the  length  of  the  psalms  depending 
on  the  choice  of  the  minister,  there  would  be  great  encour- 
agement to  the  introduction  of  the  practice  of  singing  this 
j)art  of  the  service,  instead  of  repeating  the  verses  by  the 
njinister  and  the  clerk  alternately-  As  to  the  selection 
made,  he  considers  some  of  the  omissions  of  particular 
verses  as  very  capricious:  and  the  selections  in  general  as 
Iiaving  added  to  the  length  of  the  morning  and  evening 
prayer,  instead  of  shortening  them  ;  an  object  confessedly 
proper  to  be  kept  in  view.  They  were  indeed  made  witli 
too  little  deliberation;  of  w'hich  there  needs  not  to  be  given 
any  stronger  proof,  than  that  the  selections  which  stand  as 
the  seventh  and  the  eighth  were  proposed  by  the  House  of 
Bishops,  at  his  desire,  as  an  amendment.  The  excellency 
of  the  psalms  overlooked  by  gentlemen  of  judgment  and 
taste,  is  a  proof,  that  the  time  and  the  care  bestowed  on 
the  work  were  not  proportioned  to  its  importance.  The 
proposal  for  the  inserting  of  them,  was  owing  to  the  desire 


Xole  to  page  30.  lo3' 

of  having  the  printed  selections,  since  tliere  were  to  he 
such,  to  contaia  as  many  or"  tiie  psalai^  as  wore  suited  to 
rlie  ordinary  devotions  of  a  conirregation.  T!ie  selections 
which  the  bishops  made  contained  whole  psalms,  on  the 
principle  already  stated.  Tlie  other  house  accepted  them 
as  sent ;  ordy  that  they  excluded  one  verse  from  the  eiglity- 
Iburtli  psaliii.  But  this  sui>ject  has  been  spoken  to  more 
particularly  in  a  former  department  of  the  present  work. 

There  has  been  already  expressed  the  opinion,  that  this 
part  of  the  service  requires  improvement,  as  much  as  any. 
The  author  earnestly  wishes  to  see  the  time  when  it  may 
be  estabiisiied  on  the  principles  of  rational  piety  and  i^ood 
taste.  But  there  are  great  difficulties  in  the  way.  On  the 
one  hand  there  are  very  many,  who  remain  attached  to 
the  old  practice  of  reading  all  the  psalais,  according  to  the 
daily  arrangement.  Against  this,  besides  the  objection  so 
often  made,  that  some  of  liicm  have  more  of  the  severity 
of  the  legal,  tlian  of  the  mercy  ot  the  evangelical  dispensa- 
tion ;  there  is  the  circumstance,  that  a  very  great  proportion 
of  these  compositions  are  expressive  of  peculiar  states  of 
mind  ;  no  one  of  wliich  can  be  supposed  descriptive  of  any 
body  of  people,  convened  on  a  common  occasion  of  devotion. 
Accordingly,  the  |iarts  referred  to  seem  to  be  not  suited  to 
such  an  occasion  ;  however  adujirabiy  they  may  be  so  for  the 
private  prayer  and  thanksgiving  of  particular  persons.  As 
to  the  plea  of  antiquity;  little  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  it, 
Jinless  it  could  be  proved,  that  the  psalms  were  so  used  in 
the  earliest  ages  of  the  Ciiurch  ;  the  contrary  to  which  is 
liere  taken  to  be  the  fact. 

But  although  these  objections  lie,  as  is  conceived,  against 
the  past  practice;  there  is  such  a  propensity  manifested  to 
the  extreme  of  hypercriticism,  as  is  calculated  to  bring 
reproach  on  every  temperate  reform  of  this  part  of  the 
service.  The  selections  in  the  present  Prayer  Book,  had 
they  consisted  of  entire  psalms,  would  have  been  much 
more  generally  used  than  they  are  at  present.  In  saying 
this,  it  is  not  intended  to  object  to  collections  of  verses, 
made  with  a  professed  reference  to  particular  subjects  ;  a 
beautiful  instance  of  which — ^it  is  spoken  of  as  a  mere 
matter  of  taste — is  in  the  English  Prayer  Book,  in  the 
hymn  in  the  30th  of  January  service,  to  be  used  instead  of 
the  "  Venite."  But  it  is  wished  to  distinguish  between  a 
selection,  made  with  a  reference  to  a  particular  subject ; 
and  rejection,  on  a  supposed  unfitness  for  any  act  of  Chris- 
tian devotion, 

20 


154  Xott  to  pagti  30. 

in  the  service  for  tlie  administration  of  the  communion; 
it  may  perhaps  be  expected,  that  the  great  change  made, 
in  restoring  to  the  consecration  prayer  the  oblatory  words 
and  the  invocation  of  tlie  Holy   Spirit,  left  out   in   King 
Eihvard's  reign,  must  at  least  iiave  produced  an  opposition. 
But  no  such  thing  happened  to  any  considerable  extent  ; 
or  at  least,  the  author  did  not  hear  of  any  in  the  other 
house,  further  tlian  a  disposition  to  the  efl'ect  in  a  few 
gentlemen,    which    was   counteracted    by    some   pertinent 
remarks  of  the  president.     In  that  of  the  bishops,   it  lay 
very   near  to   the   heart  of  Bishop   Seabury.     As  for  the 
other  bishop,  without  conceiving  with  some,  that  the  service 
as   it  stood  was  essentially  defective,  he  always  thought 
there  was  a  beauty  in  those  ancient  forms,  and  can  discover 
no  superstition  in  them.     If  indeed  they  could  have  been 
reasonably  thought  to  imply,  that  a  Christian  minister  is  a 
priest,  in  the  sense  of  an  olierer  of  sacrifice,  and  that  the 
table  is  an  altar  and  the  elements  a  sacrifice,  in  any  other 
than  figurative  senses,  he  would  have  zealously  opposed 
the    admission   of  such    uncvangelical   sentiments — as   he 
conceives  them  to  be.     The   English  reformers  carefully 
exploded  every  thing   of  this   sort,    at  the   time   of  their 
issuing  of  the  first  book  of  Common  Prayer,  which  con- 
tained   the  oblation    and  the  invocation.     Although  they 
were  left  out  on  a  subsequent  review ;  yet  it  is  known  to 
have  been  done  at  the  instance  of  two  learned  foreigners  ; 
and  in  order  to  avoid  what  was  thought  the  appearance  of 
encouragement  of  the  superstition,  which  had   been  done 
away.     The  restoring  of  those  parts  of  the  service  by  the 
American  Chr.rch,  has  been  since  objected  to  by  some  few 
among  us.     To  show  that  a  superstitious  sense  must  iiave 
been  intended,  they  have  laid  great  stress  on  the  i)rinting 
of  the  words  "which  we  now  offer  unto  thee,"  in  a  diflerent 
character  from  the  rest  of  the  prayers.     But  this  was  mere 
accident.      The  bishops,  being  possessed  of  the  form  used 
in  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church,  which  they  had  altered  in 
soirje  respects ;  referred  to  it,  to  save  the  trouble  of  copying. 
But  the  reference  was  not  intended  to  establish  any  parti- 
cular manlier  of  j)rinting  ;  and  accordingly,  in  all  the  edi- 
tions of  the  Prayer  Book  since  the  first,  the  aforesaid  words 
have  been  printed  in  the  same  character  with  the  rest  of 
the  prayer,  without  any  deviation  from  the  original  appoint- 
ment.    Bishop    Seabury's    attachment   to  these    changes, 
raay   be   learned    from    the    following    incident.     On    the 
morning  of  the  Sunday  which  occurred  during  the  session 


Note  to  page  30.  ISS 

of  the  convention,  the  author  wished  liini  to  consecrate  the 
«lements.  This  he  dechned.  On  the  offer  being  again 
made  at  the  time  when  the  service  was  to  begin,  he  still, 
dechned;  and,  smiHng,  added — To  confess  the  truth,  I 
hardly  consider  the  form  to  be  used,  as  strictly  amounting 
to  a  consecration.  The  form  was  of  course  that  used 
heretofore ;  the  changes  not  having  taken  effect.  These 
sentiments  he  had  adopted,  in  his  visit  to  the  bishops  from 
whom  he  received  his  Episcopacy. 

In  the  occasional  services,  there  was  so  httie  difference  of 
opinion,  that  nothing  interesting  is  recollected. 

Although  the  canons,  published  at  the  last  convention, 
came  under  review  in  this,  and  received  alterations  and  ad- 
ditions, yet  there  was  no  memorable  incident  connected  with 
tliem.  They  passed  in  the  other  house  almost  the  same  as 
they  were  drawn  up  and  sent  to  them  by  the  bishops. 

When  it  was  intimated,  that  there  should  again  be  a  re- 
currence to  the  article  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  this  was  with 
the  view  of  delivering  sentiments  entertained  on  the  subject, 
as  expressed  in  the  following  letter  to  Bishop  Seabury, 
written  at  the  crisis  of  the  difficulty,  which  arose  on  the 
appearance  of  the  misunderstanding. 

Philadelphia,  December,  1789. 
Right  reveremd  and  dear  Sir, 

I  received  your  friendly  letter  of  October  11th,  and  laid 
it  before  the  committee,  who  have  expressed  no  formal  de- 
termination on  the  subject,  although  it  appears  to  me  to  be 
the  sense  of  the  members,  that  they  cannot  recede  from  the 
proposal  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 

Having  revolved  the  matter  most  seriously  in  my  mind,  I 
have  thought  that  it  might  serve  the  two  purposes  of  a  friend- 
ly communication  with  you,  and  of  leaving  a  record  of  the 
principles  on  which  1  act,  if  I  exhibit,  as  briefly  as  possible, 
and  without  citing  authorities,  a  general  view  of  my  senti- 
ments on  the  point :  I  shall  arrange  them  under  these  heads 
— the  history  of  the  article — its  merits  as  a  scripture  ques- 
tion— and  the  present  state  of  it  in  this  Church. 

As  to  its  history;  I  take  its  first  appearance  in  a  particu- 
lar creed,  to  have  been  as  stated  in  the  preface  to  the  pro- 
posed book,  and  to  have  meant  no  more  than  burial.  The 
archbishops  tell  us  that  it  was  inserted  in  opposition  to  an 
ancient  heresy — meaning  the  Apollinarian.  I  cannot  find, 
.although  I  formerly  took  some  pains  for  the  purpose,  any 
avowed  reference  of  this  sort.     Nevertheless,  as  Christ'^ 


156  Note  io  page  30. 

descent  into  hell,  before  the  insertion  of  the  article,  was  uii- 
(jnestionabiy  appealed  to  by  the  Catholics,  as  a  confutation 
of  the  heresy,  I  should  not  be  surprised  to  find  evidence  of 
its  being  inserted  with  a  view  to  that.  Further,  the  univer- 
sal and  uncontradicted  prevalence  of  the  belief  of  the  descent 
in  the  beginnini^  of  the  fifth  century,  notwithstanding  the 
^vhims  with  which  it  became  connected,  is  of  no  small  sup- 
port to  the  opinion,  in  the  strictest  and  to  some  the  most 
offensive  sense  of  the  words.  Here,  as  it  is  connected  with 
the  subject,  let  me  mention  what  I  take  to  be  the  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew  word  ^Ti^'!;^  and  the  Greek  word  a.dn;.  The 
former  signifies,  sometimes,  merely  the  grave,  and  some- 
times, most  evidently  to  my  mind,  a  place  of  unhapjiiness. 
A^ni  generally  conveys  the  last  mentioned  idea.  Although 
some  passages  may  be  found,  in  which  it  is  applied  to  a 
future  state  indeterminately,  yet  I  take  it  to  be  the  opinion 
of  our  best  judges,  that  its  general  and  proper  meaning  is 
the  dominion  of  Satan  or  a  place  of  torment.  But  not  to 
digress  too  far,  I  hold  it  to  be  an  unquestionable  fact,  that 
from  the  time  of  the  general  prevalence  of  the  article  in 
question,  as  superadded  to  the  burial,  it  was  universally  un- 
derstood in  the  strict  sense,  and  so  continued  to  the  time  of 
the  reformation,  was  then  adopted  by  our  Church  in  the 
same  sense;  although  afterward,  by  dropping  the  reference 
to  the  place  in  St.  Peter,  she  left  more  latitude  as  to  the 
precise  manner  of  explaining  the  article. 

This  brings  me  to  my  second  particular — the  merits  of 
the  article  as  a  scripture  (luestion.  Here,  truth  and  can- 
dour require  mo  to  acknowledge,  that  th.ey  who  hold  the 
doctrine  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  words,  have  much  to  say. 
It  takes  off  most  of  the  obscurity  of  the  ])lace  in  St.  Peter, 
above  alluded  to,  which,  otherwise,  seems  incoherent  and 
unintelligible.  There  is  another  passage  in  the  next  chaj)- 
ter,  (iv.  6.)  which,  on  this  construction,  is  natural  and  of 
obvious  meaning,  but  of  which  1  never  met  with  any  other 
tolerable  interpretation.  The  passage  from  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians,  which  we  read  in  the  ordination  service,  has 
been  otherwise  ingeniously  interpreted,  but  with  a  very 
forced  and  unnatural  interpretation  of  the  words — "  the 
lower  parts  of  the  earth,"  and  with  the  entire  loss  of  con- 
nexion with  the  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament.  The 
passage  Col.  ii.  15,  has  also  a  leaning  this  way.  That  in 
the  sixteenth  Psalm,  if  we  consider  it  a  mere  prophecy  con- 
^erninff  our  Saviour,  may  n)ean  his  resurrection  only  ;  for 
^he  word  "  soid"  is  often  put  for  person,  and  sometimes  for 


Note  to  page  30.  157 

the  mere  body  in  the  Old  Testament.  As  to  the  repetition, 
it  is  agreeable  to  a  well  known  characteristic  of  eastern 
poetry.  But  if — which  seems  the  most  reasonable — we  take 
the  prophecy  to  relate  immediately  to  David,  although  re- 
motely and  completely  to  the  Messiah,  the  beautiful  verses 
which  follow,  show  the  psalmist's  expectation  of  spiritual 
happiness,  antecedently  to  and  independently  on  resurrec- 
tion. Accordingly,  they  give  an  aspect  to  the  verse  in 
question,  of  pertaining — in  its  remote  sense — as  well  to  the 
soul  as  to  the  body  of  the  Redeemer. 

But  although,  for  the  above  reasons,  the  doctrine  seems 
probable  in  its  strict  sense,  yet,  considering  that  the  pass- 
ages are  few,  that  they  are  obscure,  and  tiiat  they  are  in- 
troduced incidentally — except  the  last,  which  admits  of 
another  interpretation  ;  and  that  the  sense  does  not  appear, 
like  the  divinity,  the  incarnation,  the  humanity,  and  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  as  a  leading  truth  of  holy  writ,  I  do 
not  wish  to  have  it  required  as  an  essential  of  Christian 
faith:  and  I  think,  that  the  article  may  very  well  be  so 
softened  and  explained,  as  that  the  use  may  be  understood, 
whatever  be  the  form,  to  express  no  more  than  the  passing 
into  a  place  of  departed  spirits.  There  would  seem  to  be 
no  objection  to  this,  since  Alnc  sometimes  means  the  invisi- 
ble state,  without  any  appropriation  to  happiness  or  misery, 
agreeably  to  the  use  of  it  among  the  Greeks,  from  whom 
the  word  was  taken.  The  truth  of  the  doctrine,  with  this 
latitude,  rests  on  passages  more  explicit  than  those  quoted, 
and  indeed,  on  the  whole  analogy  of  our  faith.  Into  the 
proof  of  this,  I  do  not  go  not  understanding  it  to  be  in  dis- 
pute among  us.  However,  I  will  not  affirm  the  necessity 
of  making  it,  although  true,  an  article  in  so  short  a  compo- 
sition as  the  Apostles'  Creed.  As  to  the  absurd  tenet  of  the 
Apollinarians,  it  might  be  guarded  against  in  another  way, 
more  conveniently  and  more  explicitly.  Therefore  the 
matter  of  retaining  or  omitting  rests,  in  my  mind,  chiefly 
on  the  footing  of  usefulness  and  expediency.  If  retained, 
as  explained  in  our  amendment,  it  will  not  contradict  any 
principle  to  which  regard  should  be  had  among  us.  If 
omitted,  it  will  be  liable  to  many  inconveniences,  to  be 
pointed  out  under  the  third  branch  of  the  subject,  to  which 
1  now  pass — the  present  state  of  the  article  in  our  Church- 
It  appears  most  unquestionable  to  my  understanding,  that 
if  a  person  of  good  sense,  but  a  stranger  to  what  has  passed 
on  the  subject,  and  entirely  indiiferent  to  the  question,  were 
s.Q  make  out  a  copy  for  the  printer  from  the  papers  prepared 


158  Note  to  page  30. 

by  the  convention,  the  copy  would  be  agreeable  to  our 
amendment.  Yet  this  would  be  a  very  ineligible  footing 
on  which  to  rest  the  matter,  because  the  members  of  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  n)ight  truly  declare, 
that  they  never  meant  it.  And  it  would  appear  in  full  proof, 
that  the  amendnjent  was  never  read  to  them. 

If  the  above  should  make  the  whole  transaction  null,  the 
obvious  inference  is,  that  we  revert  to  the  English  book  in 
this  point;  for  as  to  the  position  that  we  have  no  creed,  nor 
any  other  service,  until  framed  by  a  convention,  it  appears 
to  me  of  such  dangerous  tendency,  and  is  so  inconsistent 
with  the  proceedings  of  former  general  conventions,  and 
those  of  all  the  state  conventions  in  my  possession,  that  its 
being  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  late 
General  Convention,  will  never  justify  me  to  my  own  con- 
science, in  making  it  a  ground  of  conduct.  On  the  contrary, 
I  hold  it  to  be  my  duty  to  God  and  the  Church,  to  presume 
the  opposite,  as  the  present  known  profession  of  our  com- 
munion. 

What  then  is  the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England  in  this 
matter!^  The  archbishops,  in  their  communication,  allude 
to  such  a  declared  sense.  But  with  the  utmost  deference 
to  so  high  an  authority,  I  never  could  find  it  in  any  institu- 
tions of  that  Church.  As  to  her  writers,  they  differ  widely 
from  one  another.  Dr.  Fiddes  is  a  strong  advocate  for  the 
strict  sense  of  the  words.  Dr.  Barrow  prefers  the  making 
of  them  synonymous  with  burial.  Bishops  Pearson  and 
Burnet,  are  for  the  sense  comprehended  by  the  proposed 
marginal  note  and  rubric.  Yet  we  may  gather  from  them 
all,  that  the  strict  sense  was  the  original  meaning.  And 
my  only  objection  to  leaving  the  matter  as  we  found  it,  is 
the  rigour  of  requiring  the  belief  of  it  in  that  high  sense. 
For  although  I  should  fear  to  insert  any  thing  in  oj)|)osition 
to  it — "  lest  haply  we  be  found  to  fight  against  God" — yet, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  involved  in  so  much  difficulty  as  to 
make  meequally  fear  the  being,  by  the  requisition  of  it,  "wise 
above  what  is  written."  The  latter  may  perhaps  be  ob- 
jected to  the  English  creed,  without  some  explanatory  ex- 
tension ;  for  notwithstanding  all  that  was  said  concerning 
"hell"  being  synonymous  with  "a  place  of  departed 
spirits,"  without  a  special  application  to  a  state  of  unhappi- 
ncss,  1  take  the  fact  to  be  generally  otherwise. 

But  now,  if  this  reasoning  should  be  wrong,  and  the 
matter  should  be  supposed  to  rest,  agreeably  to  the  sense 
of  the  committee,  who  contend,  that  by  rejecting  our  rubric 


\ote  to  page  30.  j.>j« 

tfeey  retain  their  own,  and  that  the  body  of  the  creed  should 
be  altered  accordingly,  1  proceed  to  state  tiie  bud  conse- 
quences of  their  plan. 

1st.  As  the  article  is  acceptable  to  many,  on  the  princi- 
ple of  its  combating  of  a  glaring  error,  1  would  not  even 
seem  to  countenance  that  error,  when  the  diiiiculty  com- 
plained of  might  have  been  removed  without  any  absurdity, 
or  the  contradicting  of  the  principles  of  any  members  of 
our  Church. 

2dly.  The  referring  of  the  alternative  to  the  choice  of 
the  respective  churches,  whether  it  be  meant  to  those  in  the 
different  states  collectively,  or  to  the  congregations  sepa- 
rately, threatens  in  either  case  much  dangerous  litigation. 

3dly.  Without  entering  into  the  question,  how  fiu-  a  con- 
vention are  bound  by  the  proceedings  of  their  predecessors, 
so  far  as  the  same  persons  are  concerned  at  this  time,  in 
reversing  what  they  did  in  October,  1786,  and  considering 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  does  not  square  with  ray 
ideas  of  good  faith;  although  in  saying  this,  I  only  look  at 
the  effect  of  it  on  my  own  situation. 

4thly.  At  a  time  when  our  Church  is  not  in  secure  pos- 
session of  the  Episcopacy,  it  is  highly  imprudent  to  take 
any  measures  which  may  impede  us  in  that  business. 

5thly.  On  the  plan  proposed,  it  will  require  a  stronger 
exertion  of  ecclesiastical  authority  than  hitherto,  to  prevent 
different  ways  in  the  same  church,  in  the  case  of  a  stranger's 
officiating  ;  whose  departure  from  the  usage  of  that  particu- 
lar church  would  tend  to  distract  the  minds  of  the  people. 

6thly.  There  are  proofs  on  this  very  point,  that  gentle- 
men may  resolve  on  such  matters  in  convention,  and  yet, 
in  their  respective  cures,  may  not  have  constancy  to  carry 
them  into  effect ;  which  tends  to  throw  on  others  the  odious 
appearance,  of  being  singularly  forward  in  innovation. 

7thly.  We  shall  have  the  less  to  justify  ourselves  in  the 
event  of  the  inconveniences  apprehended,  because  of  the 
general  acceptation  of  this  article  of  the  creed ;  it  being 
retained  by  the  Roman  CathoHcs,  by  the  Lutheran  Churches, 
and  by  the  Presbyterians  of  all  descriptions,  besides  others. 

And  now,  after  all  these  difficulties,  the  question  is — 
What  is  to  be  done?  I  know  not.  But  if  the  committee 
are  so  confident  of  the  goodness  of  their  construction,  as  to 
make  it  the  foundation  of  their  printing  of  the  book,  at  the 
same  time  admitting— as  they  have  done— a  delcaration 
from  me  annexed  to  the  record,  that  my  signing  of  the 
morning  prayer  is  not  to  be  construed  as  involvine-  an  ac- 

C3 


idO  Noie  to  page  SO. 

knovvledgnicnt  of  the  consent  of  the  House  of  Bishops  to* 
that  matter,  I  am  very  vvillin!>'  to  {)romise,  on  the  condition 
of  being  thus  not  answerable  for  the  consequences,  to  throw 
no  impediment  in  the  way  of  the  book  on  that  account,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  to  give  it  all  t)ie  support  in  my  power, 
making  use,  however,  in  common  with  others,  of  the  latitude 
allowed  in  this  instance  by  the  book  itself. 

I  must,  however,  my  dear  sir,  with  the  freedom  which  I 
hope  will  subsist  between  us,  confess  to  you,  that  I  feel 
most  sensibly  a  difficulty  to  which  in  this  and  in  a  very  few 
<)thcr  particulars,  T  am  subjected  by  the  late  fixture  of  the 
constitution.  So  far  as  the  making  of  the  bishops  a  sepa- 
rate liouse  tended  to  conciliate  our  eastern  brethren,  1  re- 
joice in  it,  as  for  the  good  of  the  Church.  And  so  far  as  it 
lately  gave  me  much  of  your  company  and  conversation,  I 
remember  it  with  peculiar  personal  satisfaction.  1  think 
further,  tiiat  on  this  plan,  matters  arc  more  likely  to  be 
matured,  than  on  that  of  a  single  house.  But  it  is  a  dictate 
of  natural  justice,  that  there  should  be  no  apparent,  where 
there  is  no  real  responsibility.  If  any  one  should  compare 
the  constitution,  with  the  known  fact  and  general  persua- 
sion of  our  having  before  a  liturgy,  he  will  presume  of  a 
majority  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  that  is,  in  the  present 
case,  of  all  of  the  order  present,  that  they  were  in  their  judg- 
ments favourable  to  all  the  alterations  made.  This,  you 
know,  was  not  the  fact.  And  although,  in  regard  to  the 
points  given  up,  I  shall  think  nothing  of  them,  if,  in  the 
event,  the  great  good  should  be  accomplished,  of  having  one 
service  for  the  Church  in  these  states;  yet  I  wish  that  the 
thing  had  been  otherwise  contrived  as  to  that  same  respon- 
sibility. And  if  the  operation  bean  hard  one,  in  relation  to 
matters  to  which  we  gave  our  sanction,  although  we  wished 
them  otherwise,  it  will  be  more  so,  on  a  point  to  which  we 
have  given  no  sanction.  Still  1  know  of  no  expedient  be- 
sides that  suggested. 

You  will  rejoice  to  find,  that  I  have  nothing  to  add  on  a 
subject  on  which  1  must  have  been  at  this  time  very  tedious 
to  you;  and  therefore  I  conclude  myself. 

Your  affectionate  brother, 

WM.  WHITE. 
Right  Rev.  Bishop  Seahury. 


Xot3  to  pui^e  SO-  161 


K.  Pai;o  30.      Of  the  Convention  in  1792. 

The  bishops  pi-esont  af  thir^  co?n-eiition,  were  Bishops 
8eabtjry,  White,  Piovoost,  Madison,  and,  after  consecra- 
tion, Clai^oett. 

Bishop  Provoost  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and 
Dr.  William  Smith,  oi'  Pennsylvania,  in  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  De[)uties.  The  secretaries  of  the  two 
houses  were,  of  the  former  first  the  Rev.  Samuel  Keene, 
and  afterwards  the  Rev.  Leonard  Cutting;  and  of  the 
latter,  the  Rev.  John  Bisset. 

The  occasion  was  opened,  by  a  sermon  from  Bishop 
Seabury;  airreeabiy  to  the  desire  of  the  last  convention. 

An  unpropitious  circumstance  attended  the  opening  of 
this  convention  ;  but  was  happily  removed,  before  proceed- 
ing to  business.  Bishop  Seabury  and  Bishop  Provoost 
had  never,  when  the  former  had  been  in  New-York  at 
different  times  since  his  consecration,  exclianged  visits. 
Although  the  author  knows  of  no  persona!  offence,  that 
had  ever  passed  from  either  of  them  to  the  other,  and 
indeed  was  assured  of  the  contrary  by  them  both  ;  yet  the 
notoriety,  that  Bishop  Provoost  had  denied  the  validity  of 
Bishoj)  Seabury's  consecration,  accounted  at  least  for  the 
omission  of  the  attentions  of  a  visit,  on  either  side.  This 
very  thing  had  not  been  without  its  consequences,  on  the 
proceeding  of  the  conventions  :  which  is  here  stated,  as  a 
caution  against  such  partial  considerations,  acted  on  with- 
out due  deliberation,  and  producing  inconsistencies  of  con- 
duct. For  in  the  convention  of  June,  1786,  on  the  question 
of  denying  the  validity  of  Bishop  Seabury's  ordinations,  the 
vote  of  New- York  is  "  Aye"  although  it  was  well  known, 
that  tvvo  of  the  three  clergymen  from  that  state  had  paid 
attentions  to  Dr.  Seabury,  as  a  bishop ;  and  that  he  stood 
high  in  their  esteem.  But  they  acted  under  instructions 
from  the  Church  in  their  state ;  when  the  convention  of  it 
was  of  a  complexion,  corresponding  with  that  vote.  After- 
ward, in  the  General  Convention  of  1789,  the  convention 
of  New- York  having  been,  at  its  preceding  meeting,  com- 
posed principally  of  gentlemen  of  an  opposite  sentiment  on 
this  subject,  the  deputies  from  that  state  were  among  the 
foremost  in  producing  the  resolution  then  come  into,  of  re- 
cognising Bishop  Seabury's  Episcopal  character. 

But  to  return  to  the  narrative.     The  prejudices  in  the 
minds  of  the  two  bishops  were  such  as  threatened  a  distance 

21 


162  Nole  to  page  30. 

beUvef.'ii  them;  which  would  give  an  unlavourablc  appear- 
ance to  themselves,  and  to  the  whole  body,  and  might  per- 
haps have  an  evil  influence  on  their  deliberations.     But  it 
happened  otherwise.     On  a  proposal  being  made  to  them 
by  conimon  friends,  and  through  the  medium  of  the  present 
author,  on  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Smith,  they  consented  with- 
out the  least  heskation,  Bishop  Seaburyto  pay,  and  Bishop 
Provoost  to  receive  the  visit,  which  etiquette  enjoined  on 
the  former  to  the  latter;  and  was  as  readily  accepted  by 
the  one,  as  it  had  been  proffered  by  the  other.    The  author 
was  present  when  it  took  place.     Bishop  Provoost  asked 
his  visitant  to  dine  with  him  on  the  same  day,  in  company 
of  the  author  and  others.     The  invitation  was  accepted; 
and  from  that  time,   nothing  was   perceived  in   either  of 
then),  which  seemed  to  show,  that  the  former  distance  was 
the  result  of  any  thing  else,  but  difference  in  opinion. 

There  was  another  matter,  which  threatened  the  excite- 
ment of  personal  resentments ;  but  it  was  got  over,  as 
happily  as  the  preceding. 

When  the   bishops   met   in  the  vestry-room   of  Trinity 
Church,  on  Wednesday,  the  12th  of  September,  it  ajjpeared, 
that  Bishops  Provoost  and  Madison  were  dissatisfied  with 
the  rule  in  regard  to  the  presidency,  as  established  in  1789. 
As  the  house  were  divided  on  the  question  of  repealing  the 
rule,   it  would  have  stood.     But  this  might  have  been  con- 
strued into  an  ungenerous  advantage  of  the  prior  meeting; 
in  which,  those   now  in  the  negative  had  voices,  and  the 
others  had  none.     The  day  passed  over  without  any  deter- 
mination ;  which  was  not  productive  of  inconvenience  ;  the 
morning  being  principally  occupied  by  the  religious  service, 
and   the   convention  not  meeting  in  the  afternoon.     The 
next  morning,  the  author  received  a  message  from  Bishop 
Seabury ;  requesting  a  meeting  in  private,  before  the  hour 
of  the  convention.     It  took  place  at  Dr.  Moore's,  where  he 
lodged.     He  opened  his   mind  to  this  effect — That  from 
the  course  taken  by  the  two  other  bishops  on  the  preceding 
day,  he  was  afraid  they  had  in  contemplation  the  debarring 
of  him  from  any  hand  in  the  consecration,  expected  to  take 
place  during  this  convention — that  he  could  not  submit  to 
this,  without  an  implied  renunciation  of  his  consecration, 
and  contempt  cast  on  the  source  from  which  he  had  re- 
ceived it — and  that  the  apprehended  measure,  if  proposed 
and  persevered  in,  must  be  followed  by  an  entire  breach 
with  him,  and,  as  he  supposed,  with  the  Church  under  his 
superintendence. 


\oi€  to  pagr  30.  16S 

"The  author  expressed  his  persuasion,  that  no  sucii  design 
was  entertained,  either  by  Bishop  Frovoust  or  by  Bishop 
IVIadison  ;  and  his  determination,  that  if  it  were,  it  should 
not  have  his  concurrence.  He  beUeved  they  wished,  as  he 
also  did,  to  have  three  bishops  present  under  the  English 
consecration,  whenever  such  an  occasion,  as  that  now  ex- 
pected, should  occur.  The  being-  united  in  the  act  with  a 
i)ishop  who  sliould  consecrate  through  another  line,  would 
not  weaken  the  English  chain.  In  regard  to  the  question 
of  presidency,  on  wliich  Bishop  Seabury  had  intimated  that 
he  should  not  be  tenacious;  the  author  told  him,  that  his 
opinion  being  the  same  as  in  1789,  he  could  not  consistently 
vote  for  the  reversing  of  the  rule ;  which,  if  it  were  done, 
he  thought  had  best  be  by  the  absence  that  morning  of  one 
of  the  two  now  conversing  ;  and  that  should  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  think  it  proper  in  tliis  way  to  waive  his  right  under 
the  rule,  the  author  pledged  himself,  that  in  no  event  would 
he  have  a  hand  in  the  ensuing  consecration,  if  it  were  to 
be  accompanied  by  the  rejection  of  Bishop  Seabury's  as- 
sistance in  it ;  although  there  was  still  entertained  the 
persuasion,  that  no  such  measure  would  be  thought  of,  as 
indeed  proved  to  be  the  fact.  Hands  were  given,  in  testi- 
mony of  mutual  consent  in  this  design.  He  absented  him- 
self that  morning,  and  the  rule  was  altered,  in  the  manner 
related  on  the  journal ;  that  is,  for  the  presidency  to  go  in 
rotation,  beginning  from  the  north  ;  which  made  Bishop 
Provoost  the  president  on  the  present  occasion. 

At  the  opening  of  this  convention,  it  was  no  small  satis- 
faction to  many,  to  find  lay-deputies  from  Connecticut. 
The  aversion  entertained  by  the  clergy  in  that  state,  to 
this  part  of  the  institution  in  the  more  southern,  had  been 
one  of  the  principal  impediments  to  an  union:  and  when  it 
was  at  last  effected,  it  was  with  a  latitude  to  them  in  this 
article.  Some  of  the  laity,  at  the  time,  were  afraid  that 
this  would  be  the  beginning  of  rejecting  them  entirely.  But 
the  event  ought  to  be  noticed,  as  a  proof  that  forbearance 
and  mutual  toleration  are  at  least  sometimes  a  shorter  way 
to  unity,  than  severity  and  stiffness. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Prayer  Book,  there  was  nothing 
which  could  properly  come  before  the  convention  without 
another  review,  and  this  was  not  intended,  except  the  see- 
ing that  the  book  had  been  properly  executed.  In  the  cor- 
recting of  any  thing  amiss  touching  this  matter,  there  could 
be  no  ground  of  ditfercnce,  except  in  the  article  of  the  descent 
into  Itell,  which  had  been  settled  as  already  related,  and  the 


164  Nate  to  page  SO. 

subject  of  the  exclusive  copy-right  of  the  book,  which  had 
been  granted  by  the  committee,  in  order  to  render  the  book 
the  cheaper,  and  to  raise  a  small  sum  for  a  charitable  use; 
which  two  objects  they  thought  consistent  with  one  another ; 
and  further,  to  secure  the  faithful  printing  of  the  book.  The 
measure,  however,  was  generally  censured,  and  was  re- 
versed. 

The  alterations  of  the  ordinal  were  prepared  by  the 
bishops.  There  was  no  material  difference  of  opinion,  ex- 
cept in  regard  to  the  words  used  by  the  bishop  at  the  ordi- 
nation of  priests — "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost" — and 
*'  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven,  and  whose 
sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained."  Bishop  Seabury, 
who  alone  was  tenacious  of  this  form,  consented  at  last,  with 
great  reluctance,  to  allow  the  alternative  of  another  as  it 
now  stands.  The  objections  to  the  use  made  of  the  afore- 
said expressions — the  author  here  speaks  his  own  sense 
only,  not  answering  for  that  of  any  other  bishop — were  as 
follow : — 

As  to  the  first — "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  it  is  sup- 
posed to  express  the  conveyance  of  the  ministerial  char- 
acter, which  St.  Paul  recognises  as  the  gift  of  the  Spirit. 
1  Tim.  iv.  14,  and  2  Tim.  i.  6.  and  Eph.  iv.  8,  11.  And  as 
to  the  expressions — "  whose  sins,  <fcc."  he  supposes  it  to  re- 
late, according  to  the  intention  of  the  service,  principally, 
under  due  regulation,  to  the  power  of  passing  ecclesiastical 
censures  and  of  releasing  from  them,  and  partly,  to  the  de- 
claring of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  repented  of  and  forsaken; 
such  forgiveness  not  to  apply  independently  on  the  sincerity 
of  the  receiver.  But  although  each  of  the  expressions  will 
thus  admit  of  a  good  interpretation,  which  should  be  given 
by  the  clergy  as  occasion  may  call  for  it;  yet  the  worclsare 
not  necessarily  to  be  used  in  preference  to  every  other  form, 
in  the  very  act  of  conveying  the  ministerial  commission.  If 
they  are  not  necessary,  they  cannot  be  so  proper  in  the 
place  in  which  they  stand,  as  some  other  words  of  more 
obvious  signification.  There  seems  the  less  reason  to 
stickle  for  the  last  of  the  two  clauses,  as  it  was  not  of  very 
early  use  in  the  Church. 

It  may  be  proper  to  record — what  would  not  otherwise 
appear  from  the  journal — that  the  greater  part  of  the  time 
of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  was  taken  up 
with  debates  on  the  jnoposed  absolute  negative  of  the 
bishops,  but  without  any  interference  on  their  part.  The 
debates  ended  in  what  ap[)ears  on  the  journal  of  the  House 


Nok  to  page  30.  165 

<®f  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  Saturday,  September  15 — ■ 
its  being  notified  to  the  churches,  that  it  was  proposed  to 
determine  on  the  subject  at  the  next  convention. 

On  the  subject  of  the  articles,  the  author  will  begin  with 
the  opinions  of  the  bishops  in  regard  to  the  general  ques- 
tion, so  far  as  they  are  within  his  knowledge  :  and  his  be- 
ginning with  his  own  opinion,  is  merely  because  of  the  com- 
plexion which  it  may  perhaps  be  supposed  to  give  to  the 
facts  to  be  narrated. 

He  professed  himself  an  advocate  for  articles,  the  abolish- 
ing of  wiiich  would,  he  thought,  only  leave  with  every  pas- 
tor of  a  congregation  the  right  of  ju<lging  of  orthodo.xy, 
according  to  his  discretion  or  his  prejudices,  while  the  arti- 
cles determine  that  matter  by  a  rule,  issuing  from  the  public 
authority  of  the  Church. 

When  the  question  has  been  put — whether  the  thirty-nine 
articles  are  the  best  rule  that  can  be  devised,  he  has  an- 
swered, that  he  thought  Xhan  better  than  any  other,  likely 
to  be  obtained  under  j)resent  circumstances.  Conventional 
business  is  too  much  hurried,  and  the  members  of  the  con- 
ventions are  not  sufficiently  retired  from  other  avocation?, 
for  the  entering  on  determinations  of  this  magnitude.  Even 
if  the  greater  number  of  the  body  should  be  conceded  to  be 
sufficiently  learned  for  the  work,  ecclesiastical  legislation 
has  not  been  of  sufficiently  long  standing  in  this  Church,  to 
have  established  the  characters  of  those  who  exercise  it,  as 
io  this  point,  in  the  estimation  of  the  world.  Until  such  a 
character  shall  be  established,  a  few  obstinate  or  factious 
men  will  overset,  in  their  respective  congregations,  what 
shall  have  been  enacted  in  convention.  Besides,  many 
persons  among  the  laity,  and  some  even  among  the  clergy, 
had  declared  their  determination  to  abide  by  the  articles  at 
all  events:  which  made  it  much  to  be  feared  that  a  schism 
would  take  place,  whenever  any  tnaterial  change  should  be 
determined  on.  In  this  case,  they  who  should  adhere  to  the 
articles,  would  claim  their  relation  to  the  Church  of  England, 
while  it  would  be  questionable  whether  the  others  would 
have  any  permanent  tie  among  themselves. 

Therefore,  the  author  wished  for  an  adherence  to  the 
thirty-nine  articles,  not  excepting  the  general  principles 
maintained  in  the  fx)litical  parts  of  them;  but  with  an  ex- 
ception, in  the  ratification,  of  the  local  application  of  the 
said  parts,  according  to  the  letter  of  them.  But  he  did  not 
wish  to  have  the  articles  signed,  as  in  England,  according 
£o  the  tenour  of  the  thirty-sixth  canon  of  that  Church.     He 


198  .Vu/r  io  page  30. 

preferred  the  resting  of  the  obligation  of  tliem  on  the  promise 
made  at  ordination,  as  required  by  the  seventh  article  of  the 
constitution,  considered  as  sufficient  by  the  English  bishops; 
which  would  render  them  articles  of  peace,  as  they  are 
sometimes  said  to  be  in  the  Church  of  England;  but  not 
with  such  evident  propriety,  as  they  would  then  be  in  the 
American  Church.  As  the  author  approves  of  the  general 
tenour  of  the  thirty-nine  articles,  he  trusted,  that  however 
he  might  have  supposed,  in  his  private  judgment,  the  possi- 
bility of  omitting  some  of  them  and  of  altering  others  to  ad- 
vantage, yet  not  perceiving  a  probability,  either  that  such 
a  change,  if  made,  would  have  been  for  the  better;  or,  that 
if  so,  it  would  have  found  such  general  acceptance  as  to 
prove  a  sufficient  bond  of  union,  he  thought  he  acted  con- 
sistently, in  endeavouring  to  obtain  them  on  the  terms 
stated. 

Bishop  Seabury  was  free  to  declare  his  dissatisfaction 
with  some  of  the  articles,  and  during  the  former  convention 
in  Philadelphia,  had  expressed  a  doubt  in  conversation  with 
the  author  and  several  others,  whether  it  were  expedient  to 
have  any;  it  being  presumed  by  him,  that  all  necessary 
doctrine  should  be  comprehended  in  the  liturgy.  But  on 
this  occasion,  he  saw  so  clearly  the  inconveniences  likely  to 
result  from  there  being  no  authoritative  rule  in  the  form  of 
public  confession,  that  he  wished  to  adopt  one,  and  as  the 
author  understood  him,  the  code  of  the  thirty-nine  articles. 

Bishop  Provoost  did  not  deliver  his  sentiments  on  the 
subject,  which  was  the  less  exacted  of  him,  because  of  the 
circumstance  of  his  being  in  the  presidential  chair.  But 
the  author  has  always  sujiposed  that  they  do  not  materially 
differ  from  those  of  Bishop  Madison,  who  gave  his  opinion 
against  articles  altogether.  He  had  long  before  declared 
himself  on  this  point,  in  a  sermon  preached  before  the  con- 
vention of  Virginia,  some  years  j)reviously  to  his  election  to 
the  Episcopacy.  This  sermon  was  printed,  and  opposes 
articles,  on  the  principles  of  the  Confessional  and  the  like 
books. 

Bishop  Claggett  no  further  gave  his  opinion,  than  as  it 
was  implied  in  his  vote  on  the  question,  in  the  conference 
between  the  two  houses.  What  little  had  passed  among  the 
bishops,  was  before  the  consecration,  the  recency  of  which 
was  prol)ably  the  cause  of  his  giving  of  his  mere  vote  in  the 
conference  of  the  houses.  His  sense  was  decidedly  in  favour 
of  articles,  as  appeared  also  in  his  usual  conversation  on  the 
subject. 


Not€  to  page  30.  iqj 

There  was  no  formal  discussion  of  the  subject,  in  tiu» 
House  of  Kisliops,  but  they  negatived  the  question  of  refer- 
ence to  a  future  convention,  when  it  becnnie  the  subject  of 
conference  between  the  two  houses.  The  nei^ative  liap- 
pened  by  Bishop  Seabury's,  Bishop  Clairgett's,  and  the 
author's  votes,  against  Bishop  Madison's  in  the  aflirmative; 
so  that  the  president  was  not  called  on  to  vote.  The  author- 
takes  notice  that  this  transaction  is  not  recorded  on  the 
journal  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  But  it 
happened  as  recorded  on  that  of  the  bishops,  who,  by  their 
negative  vote,  only  showed  their  willingness  to  undertake 
the  subject;  for  the  postponement  took  place  of  course,  as 
the  other  house,  immediately  after  the  conference,  deter- 
mined to  dismiss  it  for  the  present. 

It  may  be  proper  to  mention  a  proposition  made  by  the 
bishops,  but  not  entered  on  the  journals. 

Bishop  Madison  had  communicated  to  the  author,  on 
their  journey  from  Philadelphia  to  New-York,  a  design 
which  he  had  much  at  heart — that  of  effecting  a  re-union 
with  the  Methodists  :  and  he  was  so  sanguine  as  to  believe, 
that  by  an  accommodation  to  them  in  a  few  instances,  they 
would  be  induced  to  give  up  their  peculiar  discipline,  and 
conform  to  the  leading  parts  of  the  doctrine,  the  worship, 
and  the  discipline  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  to  be 
noted,  that  he  had  no  idea  of  comprehending  them,  on  the 
condition  of  their  continuing  embodied,  as  at  present.  On 
this  there  was  communicated  to  him  an  intercourse  held 
with  Dr.  Coke,  one  of  the  superintendents*  of  that  society, 
which  might  have  showed  to  Bishop  Madison,  how  hopeless' 
all  endeavours  for  such  a  junction  must  prove.  Neverthe- 
less, he  persisted  in  his  well  meant  design.  The  result  of 
this,  was  his  introducing  into  the  House  o^f  Bishops  of  a  pro- 
position, which  his  brethren  after  some  modifications,  ap- 
proving of  the  motive,  but  expecting  little  as  the  result  of 
it,  consented  to  send  to  the  other  house.  The  proposition 
is  as  follows: — 

"  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  ever  bearing  in  mind  the  sacred  obligation 
which  attends  all  the  followers  of  Christ,  to  avoid  divisions 
among  themselves;  and  anxious  to  promote  that  union  for 
which  our  Lord  and  Saviour  so  earnestly  prayed ;  do  hereby 
declare  to  the  Christian  world,  that,  uninfluenced  by  any 


*  This  was  the  name  that  was  then  borne  by  those  who  presided  in  the  Metho- 


dist  communion. 


i(>^  Note  to  page  'SO. 

other  considerutions  than  those  of  dulr  as  Christians,  and 
an  Ciiinest  desire  for  the  jirosperity  of  pure  Christianity, 
and  the  fiirtherance  of  our  lioly  reli<^ion  ;  they  are  ready 
and  \villin<^  to  unite  and  i'orni  one  body  with  any  religious 
society,  uiiich  shall  be  iniluenced  by  the  same  Catholic 
spirit.  And  in  order  that  this  Christian  end  may  be  the 
more  easily  effected,  ihey  further  declare,  that  all  things 
in  wiiich  the  great  essentials  of  Christianity  or  the  char- 
acteristic principles  of  their  Church  are  not  concerned, 
they  are  willing  to  leave  to  future  discussion ;  being  ready 
to  alter  or  modify  those  points,  which  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church;  arc  subject  to  human  altera- 
tion. And  it  is  hereby  recomn^endcd  to  the  state  conven- 
tions, to  adopt  such  measures  or  propose  such  conferences 
with  Christians  of  other  denominations,  as  to  themselves 
may  be  thought  most  prudent}  and  report  accordingly  to 
the  ensuing  General  Convention." 

On  the  reading  of  this  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Dc[)uties,  they  were  astonished,  and  considered  it  as  alto- 
gether preposterous  ;  tending  to  produce  distrust  of  the 
stability  of  the  system  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  without  the 
least  prospect  of  embracing  any  other  religious  body.  The 
members  generally  mentioned,  as  a  matter  of  indulgence, 
that  they  would  permit  the  withdrawing  of  the  paper  ;  no 
notice  to  be  taken  of  it.  A  few  gentlemen,  however,  who 
had  got  some  slight  intimations  of  the  correspondence  be- 
tween Dr.  Coke  and  the  author,  who  would  have  been 
gratified  by  an  accommodation  with  the  Methodists,  and 
who  thought  that  the  paper  sent  was  a  step  in  measures  to 
be  taken  to  that  effect,  spoke  in  favour  of  the  |)roposition.. 
But  it  was  not  to  be  endured  ;  and  the  bishops  silently 
withdrew  it,  agreeably  to  leave  given. 

To  guard  against  misconstruction,  at  some  future  time, 
of  the  correspondence  between  Dr.  Coke  and  the  author, 
he  records  it  here. 

In  the  spring  of  the  year  1791,  the  author  received  from 
that  gentleman  a  letter,  containing  a  plan  of  what  he  con- 
sidered as  an  union  of  the  Methodistical  society  with  the 
Episcopal  Church.  The  plan  was,  in  substance,  that  all 
the  Methodist  ministers,  at  the  time  in  connexion,  were  to 
receive  Episcopal  ordination,  as  also  those  who  should  come 
forwards  in  future  within  the  connexion;  such  ministers  to 
remain  under  the  government  of  the  then  superintendents 
and  their  successors.  Dr.  Coke's  njotive  to  the  proposed 
union,  as  stated  in  his  letter,  was  an  apprehension  enter- 


Note  to  page  30.  10& 

tained  by  him,  that  he  had  gone  further  in  the  separation 
than  had  been  desig-ned  by  Mr.  Wesley,  from  whom  he 
had  received  liis  commission.  Mr.  Wesley  himself,  he 
was  sure,  had  gone  further  than  he  would  iuivc  i^one,  if  he 
had  foreseen  some  events  which  followed.  The  doctor 
was  certain,  that  the  same  gentleman  was  sorry  for  the 
separation,  and  would  use  his  influence  to  the  utmost,  for 
the  accomi)lishment  of  a  re-union.  Dr.  Coke's  letter  was 
answered  by  the  author,  with  the  reserve  which  seemed 
incumbent  on  one,  who  was  incompetent  to  decide  with 
eftect  on  the  proposal  made. 

It  happened  that  Dr.  Coke,  before  he  received  the  an- 
swer to  his  letter,  hearing  of  the  decease  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
the  news  of  which  reached  America  during  the  short  in- 
terval between  the  dates  of  the  two  letters,  set  off  imme- 
diately from  Baltimore  for  Philadelphia,  to  lake  his  passage 
for  England.  On  reaching  this  city  and  calling  on  Dr. 
Magaw,  he  was  much  disappointed  on  hearing  of  the  early 
answer,  lest  it  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  his  colleague — 
Mr.  Asbury.  He  visited  the  author,  in  company  of  Dr. 
Magaw;  and  in  speaking  of  the  above  incident,  said,  that 
although  he  hoped  Mr.  Asbury  would  not  open  the  letter  ; 
yet  he  might  do  so,  on  the  supposition  that  it  related  to 
their  joint  concern.  The  conversation  was  general ;  and 
nothing  passed,  that  gave  any  ground  of  expectation  of  a 
re-union,  on  the  principle  of  consolidation  ;  or  any  other 
principle,  than  that  of  the  continuing  of  the  Methodists  a 
distinct  body  and  self-governed.  In  short,  there  were  held 
out  only  the  terms  of  the  letter ;  in  which  there  does  not 
seem  to  be  contemplated  any  change  in  the  relation  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  to  that  society,  except  the  giving  of  them 
access  to  the  Episcopal  congregations,  while  there  was 
sufficient  security  provided,  to  prevent  the  clergy  of  the 
latter  from  having  access  to  congregations  of  the  Metho- 
dists. At  least  it  is  here  supposed,  that  these  things  would 
have  been  unavoidably  the  result. 

The  author  saw  Dr.  Coke  twice  after  this ;  once,  by  ap- 
pointment at  Dr.  Magaw's,  where  nothing  material  passed; 
and  again,  alone  at  the  author's  house,  where  Dr.  Coke 
read  a  letter  which  he  had  written  to  Bishop  Seabury, 
similar  to  that  which  he  had  written  to  the  author;  but 
with  the  difference  of  his  suggesting  to  Bishop  Seabury  as 
follows — That  although  the  Methodists  would  have  confi- 
dence in  any  engagements  which  should  be  made  by  the 
present  bishops;  yet  there  might  in  future  be  some,  who, 


170  NuU  to  page  30. 

on  the  arrivjil  of  thoir  inferior  grades  of  preachers  to  a 
competency  to  the  ministry,  would  not  admit  them  as  pro- 
posed in  the  letter — that  to  guard  against  the  danger  of 
this,  there  would  be  use  in  consecrating  Mr.  Asbury  to  the 
Episcopacy — and  that  although  there  would  not  be  the 
same  reasons  in  his  (Dr.  Coke's)  case,  because  he  was  a 
resident  of  England  ;  yet,  as  he  should  probably,  while  he 
lived,  occasionally  visit  America,  it  would,  not  be  fit,  con- 
sidering he  was  Mr.  Asbury's  senior,  that  he  should  appear 
in  a  lower  character  than  this  gentleman.  These  were,  in 
substance,  the  sentiments  expressed;  and  on  reading  this 
part  of  the  letter,  he  desired  the  author  to  take  notice,  that 
he  did  not  make  a  condition  of  what  he  had  there  written. 
There  was  no  comment,  and  he  proceeded. 

In  this  conversation  he  said,  that  Mr.  Asbury  had  opened 
his  letter,  but  he  had  heard  nothing  from  him  on  the  subject. 
With  this  interview,  all  intercourse  ended.  Dr.  Coke  soon 
afterward  embarked  for  England ;  and  was  reported  to 
have  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Asbury  somewhere  down 
the  river,  on  his  journey  to  the  ship.  The  author  avoided 
speaking  on  the  subject,  until  the  convention  in  1792;  and 
then  mentioned  it  only  to  the  bishops  ;  towards  whom  there 
was  understood  to  be  a  latitude.  It  was  evident  from  some 
circumstances  which  passed  in  conversation  with  Dr.  Coke, 
that  there  was  a^degree  of  jealousy,  if  not  of  misunder- 
standing, between  him  and  Mr.  Asbury.  Whether  this 
had  any  influence  in  the  enterprise  of  the  former;  or  he 
perceived  advantage  likely  to  arise  to  him,  under  the  state 
of  things  which  would  take  place  in  England  on  the  decease 
of  Mr.  Wesley  ;  arc  questions  on  which  there  is  no  judgment 
liere  formed.  The  determination  was  adopted,  not  to 
hinder  any  good  which  might  possibly  accrue  hereafter; 
although  it  was  perceived,  that  this  could  not  be  on  the 
terms  proposed. 

For  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  Dr.  Coke,  and  the  answer  to 
it,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  2L 

Perhaps  it  may  not  be  foreign  to  the  present  subject  to 
take  notice,  that  the  author,  when  in  England,  entertained 
a  desire  of  seeing  the  late  Mr.  John  Wesley,  with  the  view 
of  stating  to  him  some  circumstances,  of  which  he  might  be 
uninformed,  in  reference  to  the  design  then  lately  adopted 
of  vs^ithdrawing  the  Methodist  societies  in  America  from  the 
communion  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  Under  this  idea, 
there  was  obtained  a  letter  to  him  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pil- 
raore,  which  the  author  left  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Wesley. 


Nole  lo  page  31.  171 

when  he  was  from  home  ;  but  no  notice  was  taken  of  it. 
Hefore  the  author's  departure,  intending  to  goon  a  certain 
day  into  the  city,  he  sent  to  that  gentleman  a  letter  by  the 
])enny-})OSt,  expressing,  that  he  would  on  the  same  day 
stop  at  his  house,  if  convenient  to  him.  An  answer  was 
received,  and  is  still  in  possession,  the  purport  of  which  is, 
that  Mr.  Wesley  was  then  engaged  in  a  periodical  duty  of 
an  examination  of  his  society,  but  that  in  the  case  of  a  stay 
of  a  week  or  two,  he  would  derive  pleasure  from  the  inter- 
view proposed.  As  the  stay  was  only  ten  days  after,  and 
the  latter  part  of  the  time  was  taken  up  by  the  business  of 
the  consecration  and  in  returning  visits,  there  was  no  re- 
newal of  the  proposal  of  an  interview,  especially  as  doubts 
were  entertained  of  the  delicacy  of  doing  so;  the  resting  of 
an  hour's  conversation  on  the  event  of  a  stay  of  a  fortnight 
longer,  having  very  much  the  appearance  of  a  declining  of 
the  visit.  This  may  have  arisen  from  the  supposition,  that 
the  object  was  to  impugn  a  measure  hastily  adopted  by  Mr. 
Wesley,  and  not  intended  to  be  relinquished. 

The  author  had  also  carried  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Pilmore  to  the  Rev.  Charles  Wesley,  and  had  a  conversa- 
tion with  him  on  the  same  subject.  He  expressed  himself 
decidedly  against  the  new  course  adopted,  and  gave  the 
author  a  pamphlet  published  by  his  brother  and  himself,  in 
the  earlier  part  of  their  lives,  against  a  secession  from  the 
Church  of  England  ;  which,  he  said,  was  at  that  time  pro- 
})osed  by  some.  And  he  remarked,  that  the  whole  of  the 
j)amphlet  might  be  considered  as  a  censure  on  what  had 
been  done  recently  in  America. 


L.  Page  31.     Of  the  Conveniion  in  1795. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies.  The  secretaries,  were  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Turner,  of  the  former  house,  and  the  Rev.  James  Aber- 
crombie,  of  the  latter. 

The  preacher  on  this  occasion  was  Bishop  Provoost. 

Before  the  assembling  of  this  convention,  there  took 
])lace  an  incident,  threatening  to  produce  permanent  dis- 
satisfaction between  Bishops  Seabury  and  Provoost,  which, 
however,  was  happily  prevented.  Although  Bishop  Seabury 
had  been  chosen  biyiiop  of  the  Church  in  Rhode-Island,  the 


17-2  Note  to  page '^\. 

congregation  ot"  Narraganset,  in  that  state,  had  associated 
with  the  Cliurcli  in  Massachusetts,  wiiicli  had  unwarily  ad- 
mitted the  junction.  In  consequence,  a  clergyman  had  been 
ordained  for  the  congregation  by  Bishop  Provoost.  The 
author,  during  the  sitting  of  the  convention,  received  a  letter 
from  Bishop  Seabury,  respectfully  and  affectionately  com- 
plaining of  the  matter.  Bishop  Provoost,  on  the  letter's 
being  read  to  him,  said,  that  on  receiving  the  letter  from 
the  clergy  of  31assachusetts,  he  had  doubted  of  the  pro- 
priety of  the  proposal  in  it;  but  that  on  consulting  the 
clergy  of  New- York,  and  especially  those  in  the  most  inti- 
macy with  Bishop  Seabury,  he  was  advised  by  them  to  com- 
pliance ;  but  that  he  perceived  objections  to  such  conduct 
in  individual  congregations,  and  would  much  approve  of  a 
eanon  to  prevent  it.  Such  a  canon  was  accordingly  pre- 
pared and  passed.  It  is  believed  that  no  dissatisfaction  re- 
mained. 

The  author  was  enabled  to  lay  before  this  convention  an 
application  from  a  convention  in  North-Carolina,  for  the 
consecration  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrevv  their  bishop. 
This  gentleman,  as  appears  by  a  subsequent  letter  from 
him,  set  off  to  attend  the  convention,  with  a  view  to  conse- 
cration, but  was  prevented  by  an  interruption  of  his  journey 
in  consequence  of  an  epidemic  fever  in  Norfolk,  which  made 
him  despair  of  arriving  in  time;  there  being  some  interrup- 
tions in  the  usual  accommodations  for  travelling.  Why 
nothing  was  done  afterward,  for  the  carrying  of  the  design 
into  effect,  is  not  known,  unless  it  be  the  decease  of  the 
reverend  person  in  question,  which  must  have  hap])ened 
not  long  after. 

The  Church  in  North-Carolina  having  organized  itself, 
and  sent  deputies  to  the  General  Convention  about  three 
years  ago,  it  may  be  an  act  of  justice  to  perpetuate  their 
former  effort;  rendering  it  probable,  that  the  ensuing  inac- 
tivity is  resolveable  into  the  want  of  some  clergymen  of 
sufficient  zeal  and  influence,  to  take  the  lead  in  such  busi- 
ness. 

There  had  been,  previously,  an  exertion  to  the  same  good 
effect.  The  Rev.  James  L.  Wilson,  ordained  by  the  author 
in  1789,  embarked  as  a  deputy  to  the  General  Convention 
of  1792;  but  after  an  unusually  long  passage,  arrived  too 
late.  At  his  special  request,  his  arrival  after  the  adjourn- 
jTient  was  noticed  by  the  secretary,  as  it  now  stands,  below 
•the  journal.  Mr.  Wilson  returned  to  North-Carolina,  and 
•soon  after  died. 


Note  to  pQ'^c  31.  173 

With  the  recommendation  of  Mr.  Petti,i,a-c\v,  there  came 
a  letter  to  the  author,  expressive  of  solicitude  because  of 
what  he  considered,  and  his  electors  api)ear  in  the  instru- 
ment to  have  considered  a  departure  in  his  certilicate  from 
the  appointed  form.  The  letter  was  answered,  and  the 
answer  communicated  the  information,  that  the  supposition 
of  defect  was  owing  to  their  not  having  been  made  ac- 
quainted with  a  canon  passed  at  the  immediately  preceding 
convention,  providing  for  such  a  case  as  that  now  existing, 
in  which  some  of  the  electors,  because  of  the  want  of  per- 
sonal acquaintance,  had  rested  their  recommendation  on  the 
testimony  of  their  brethren  in  the  act. 

For  the  instrument  referred  to,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  22. 

Some  time  before  the  convention,  there  was  sent  to  the 
author,  by  a  clergyman  from  South-Carolina,  a  copy  of  a 
printed  circular  letter,  signed  by  two  clergymen  and  a  lay- 
man, and  addressed  to  the  different  vestries.  The  signers 
called  themselves  a  select  committee,  from  a  representation 
of  seven  churches,  and  proposed  the  choosing  of  a  bishop; 
but  gave  such  reasons  for  the  measure,  as  indicated  a  de- 
sign of  separating  from  the  union.  The  author  conceived 
it  to  be  his  duty,  to  lay  this  paper  before  the  bishops:  who, 
in  consequence,  after  the  testimonials  of  Dr.  Robert  Smith 
had  been  presented  to  them  with  a  view  to  his  consecration, 
desired  an  interview  with  him.  In  that  interview,  the  au- 
thor, as  president,  being  so  instructed  by  the  bishops,  asked 
him,  whether  the  convention,  which  had  been  held  in  con- 
sequence of  the  said  printed  paper,  had  adopted  the  senti- 
ments of  it.  Dr.  Smith  then  asked — Whether  his  conse- 
cration was  to  depend  on  his  answer  to  that  question  r  The 
president  replied,  that  he  was  not  instructed  on  the  point. 
Tlie  doctor  then  immediately  said,  that  the  convention  had 
not  adopted  the  principles  of  the  paper.  So  all  ditHculty 
on  that  score  was  done  away.  There  existed  no  evidence 
to  the  contrary,  nor  has  there  been  any  subsequently  re- 
ceived to  that  effect.  It  has  never  been  learned,  who  was 
the  penman  of  that  wretched  production.  Probably,  the 
offensive  sentiments  contained  in  it  were  a  temporizing  ex- 
pedient, designed  to  obviate  prejudices  which  were  known 
to  exist  in  South-Carolina,  against  the  having  of  a  bishop 
lor  that  state.  The  tendency  of  the  paper  to  a  severance 
of  the  Church  in  South-Carolina  from  the  union  was  une- 
quivocal. 

Although  the  principles  of  the  paper  were  not  adopted  bv 

the  convention  of  South=Carolina,  us  ap{)cars  from  the  tcs- 


174  Xulc  tii  jjat^c '61. 

tiinony  of  IJisIiop  Siiiitli ;  yet,  as  it  was  issued  with  a  virw 
to  important  consequences  ;  and  as  the  propriety  of  the 
conduct  of  the  House  of  IJishops  is  inipHcated  in  its  con- 
tents;  it  is  given  without  the  signatures,  in  tlie  Appendix, 
J\o.  23. 

There  appear  on  the  journals  some  entries  requiring 
exj)lanatiun,  concerning  the  llev.  Dr.  Samuel  Peters.  This 
gentleman  had  been  a  clergyman  of  Connecticut  before 
the  revolution.  He  had  gone  to  England  during  the  war; 
and  sometime  before  the  period  now  referred  to,  had  en- 
deavoured to  procure  consecration  in  England,  with  the 
view  of  being  bishop  in  Vermont:  having  obtained  a  request 
to  that  effect,  from  a  convention  held  in  the  said  state. 
The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  had  declined  to  consecrate 
any  further  for  the  United  States,  the  Church  here  being 
already  supplied  with  the  succession.  It  is  stated  in  the 
documents,  that  his  reason  was  his  not  being  authorized  by 
the  act  of  parliament,  to  consecrate  any  further;  but  this 
must  have  been  a  mistake  of  the  framers  of  the  documents. 
The  convention  of  Vermont  being  thus  disappointed,  applied 
to  the  American  bishoi)s.  There  was  but  one  clergyman 
in  that  state — The  Rev.  John  Cosins  Ogden — who  had  not 
been,  and  who  did  not  stay  there  long.  Probably  his  going 
there  for  a  time,  was  with  the  view  of  effecting  the  object 
now  treated  of.  The  conduct  of  the  bishops,  in  declining 
any  agency  in  the  business,  is  rested  on  the  circumstance, 
that  the  Church  in  Vermont  had  not  acceded  to  the  consti- 
tution. There  were  besides  some  personal  cireunistances, 
which  prevented  the  paying  of  much  respect  to  the  solicita- 
tion. It  was  this  transaction  which  produced  an  addition 
to  one  of  the  canons;  requiring,  that  to  entitle  the  Church 
in  any  state  to  a  resident  bishop,  there  shall  be  at  least  six 
presbyters  residing  and  officiating  therein. 

There  are  on  the  jomnals  of  this  convention  some  entries, 
in  which  it  was  thought  expedient  to  leave  a  transaction 
unexplained,  and  so  it  might  have  continued,  had  not  the 
very  exceptionable  conduct  of  an  individual  member,  after 
the  recess,  rendered  it  questionable,  whether  they  had  not 
erred  in  not  having  expelled  him  from  the  l)ody  ;  the  only 
punishment  in  their  power,  since  there  could  have  been  no 
ecclesiastical  trial,  except  before  the  authority  of  his  proper 
diocess,  where  he  would  iiave  been  still  liable  to  it.  There 
also  arose  the  question,  whether  the  bishops  had  acted  cor- 
rectly, in  rescuing  him  from  expulsion. 

It  appears  on  the  journal  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and 


Note  to  page  SI.  175 

Lay  Depulies,  tliat  on  Friday,  the  lltli  of  Srptrmher,  "the 
attention  of  the  house  was  called  by  the  Rov.  Dr.  Andrews 
to  the  consideration  of  a  pamphlet  lately  published,  entitled 
— Strictures  on  the  Love  of  Power  in  the  Prelacy — By  a 
Member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Association  in  South- 
Carolina — which  he  declared  to  be  a  virulent  attack  upon 
the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  our  Church,  and  a  libel 
a<rainstthe  House  of  Bishops;  and  which  was  alleged  to  be 
written  by  a  member  of  this  house."  On  Thursday,  the  17th, 
it  is  recorded  on  the  journal  of  the  House  of  Kishops — 
"  This  house  requested  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies,  to  appoint  a  committee  of  their  house,  to  meet  a 
committee  of  the  House  of  Bishops.  The  conjmittee  of 
this  house  is  Bishop  White  ai;d  Bishop  Provoost.  The 
House  of  Clerical  und  Lay  Deputies  agreed  to  the  request 
of  this  house,  and  the  joint  committee  met  in  the  bishops' 
chamber."  Further,  the  journal  of  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies  for  the  same  day  states  as  follows — 
"  The  committee,"  (meaning  that  of  the  whole  house)  "  rose, 
and  their  chairman  reported,  that  they  had  considered  the 
paper  referred  to  them  yester<!ay,  which  was  iTom  the  an- 
ther of  the  pamphlet  entitled — Strictures  on  the  Love  of 
Power  in  the  Prelacy,  in  which  he  professes  sorrow  for  the 
publication,  and  that  they  were  of  opinion  that  the  house 
should  accept  it  as  a  satisfactory  concession.  Resolved, 
that  the  house  adopt  the  above  report." 

This  termination  of  the  business,  although  pressed  by 
the  bishops,  was  not  acquiesced  in  without  considerable 
opposition ;  and  to  the  last,  three  very  respectable  lay 
gentlemen,  who  were  of  a  reniarkably  conciliatory  charac- 
ter, pressed  for  permission  to  enter  their  protest.  It  was 
not  granted  :  and  as  this  has  been  the  only  instance,  in 
which  the  question  of  a  right  to  protest  has  undergone  dis- 
cussion, the  recording  of  a  denial  of  the  right,  tails  in  with 
the  design  of  the  present  work. 

Whether  the  course  of  conduct  adopted  were  right  or 
otherwise,  it  happened  as  is  here  related.  The  autlior  of 
the  pamphlet,  seeing  expidsion  full  before  him,  thought  fit 
to  look  to  the  House  of  Bishops  for  a  shelter.  Ai'ter  con- 
siderable negotiation,  in  which  the  author  was  the  medium 
of  communication  between  the  house  and  him,  he  sent  to 
the  house  an  ample  apology  for  his  misconduct;  which  in- 
duced them  to  interfere,  in  order  to  put  a  stop  to  the  pro- 
ceedings :  and  hence  their  proposal  of  a  joint  committee. 
The  offender  gave  subsequent  evidence,  that  his  professed 


1*6  Nole  to  pii'j;c  31. 

pciiitfiicn  was  in.^inccro,  nltiioiiirli  it  had  been  accompaniefl 
by  a  prol'iisioii  ol"  tears,  when  he  discussed  the  subject  with 
tlie  author,  in  the  |)rcsence  of  the  Rev.  J)r.  Smith,  of  Penn- 
sylvania. This  was  an  issue  which  could  not  have  been 
foreseen,  and  which  it  would  have  been  uncharitable  t& 
liave  thouu^ht  probable.  The  House  of  Bishops  committed 
the  apoloiiy  to  the  keeping  of  the  author,  (where  it  now 
rentains,)  not  to  be  made  use  of,  unless  in  the  case  of  future 
misconduct.  When  this  happened,  Bishops  Provoost  and 
Madison,  who  alone  were  present  when  the  deposit  was 
made,  were  written  to  for  their  permission  to  send  a  copy 
of  the  apology  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  diocess 
to  which  the  oifender  belonged.  Leave  was  given,  and  the 
document  was  sent.* 


JM.  Page  31.     Of  the  Convention  in  1799. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  Dr. 
William  Smith,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies.  The  secretaries  were  the  Rev.  .Tohn 
Henry  Hobart,  of  the  former,  and  the  Rev.  James  Aber- 
crombie,  of  the  latter. 

The  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass  during  the  recess  of  the 
convention,  and  his  appearing  on  this  occasion  induces  the 
record,  that  on  the  7th  of  May,  1797,  lie  was  consecrated 
in  Christ  Church,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  by  the  pre- 
siding bishoj),  assisted  by  Bishops  Provoost  and  Claggett. 

It  is  evident  on  an  inspection  of  the  journal,  that  the 
bishops  had  no  opportunity  of  expressing  their  sense  on  the 
fpicstion  of  jiublishing  the  draft  of  articles  which  it  contains. 
Such  a  publication  was  certainly  very  injudicious;  if  for  no 
other  reason,  because  it  might  have  been  expected  to  be 
easily  mistaken  for  the  sense  of  at  least  one  of  the  houses 
of  the  convention.  Indeed  it  was  so  misunderstood  :  whereas 
it  was  the  sense  of  a  committee  only;  not  an  individual 
besides  having  delivered  in  his  place  any  opinion  on  any 

*  The  porsoiial  iibnse  in  the  licenlions  pamplilet.  was  principally  lerelleJ  at 
Bishop  Seabiiry;  and  the  ground  of  it,  was  his  supposed  authorship  of  a  printed 
defence  of  the  Kpiscopal  negative,  written  and  acknowledged  by  another  respect- 
able divine  of  this  Church.  On  the  author  of  the  present  work,  the  pamphleteer 
bestowed  a  commendation,  which  impliedly  exempted  him  from  the  general 
charge  of  "  Love  of  Power  in  tlie  Prelacy."  C-oming  from  such  a  pen,  it  could 
ho  no  cause  of  self-gratulation;  but  it  was  encouragement  to  assist  in  the  e.T- 
posiire  which  took  phice,  and  wiiicli  is  to  be  attributed  principally  to  Dr.  .Andrews. 


Nole  to  pa^c  31-  177 

article.  But  this  was  not  the  worst.  It  tended  to  excite 
religious  acrimony,  without  any  possible  good  effect  at  the 
j)resent;  and  with  the  probable  bad  effect  of  the  greater 
acrimony,  on  an  opportunity  of  settlement  in  future. 

In  order  to  s!iow  the  importance  of  the  exercise  of  great 
care  and  much  dehberation,  in  any  measure  which  may 
effect  Christian  verity;  the  author  will  here  notice,  that  an 
important  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  was  unwarily 
affected  in  the  body  of  the  articles,  by  the  introduction  of  a 
single  word.  It  was  "  priesthood,"  as  applied  in  the  ninth 
article,  to  denote  all  the  orders  of  the  Christian  ministry; 
and  not  confined  to  the  order  of  presbyters,  as  in  the 
established  ordinal,  of  the  former  of  which  there  is  no  ex- 
ample in  the  institutions  of  the  Church  of  England. 

It  is  well  known,  that  the  English  reformers  took  care 
to  show,  that  they  did  not  mean  to  identify  the  names  of 
the  Christian  ministry  with  those  of  the  Jewish  priesthood. 
Although  they  retained  the  name  of  "  priest,"  which  is 
UfiaSvTSfo;  (or  "  presbyter")  with  an  English  termination, 
and  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  had  stood  alike  for  that 
Greek  word  and  for  i;p=u,- ;  yet  this  Church  having  in  Latin 
adopted  the  word  "  sacerdos,"  the  last  was  carefully  avoided 
by  the  reformers,  and  "  presbyter"  was  put  in  its  place. 
It  would  have  been  in  harmony  with  this,  if  the  article  in 
question  had  applied  "  priesthood"  to  the  single  order  of 
presbyters.  But  it  is  applied  to  the  three  orders  collec- 
tively ;  which  is  another  matter.  To  perceive  the  effect, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  suppose  the  said  ninth  article  trans- 
lated into  Latin  :  in  which  case,  if  the  word  "  presbyteri- 
atus"  should  be  used,  it  would  be  wide  of  the  intended 
sense.  On  the  other  hand,  if  "  sacerdotium"  should  be 
taken,  the  innovation  would  stand  confessed.  This  would 
have  been  agreeable  to  the  theory  of  the  individual  clerffy- 
man  who  drafted  the  articles ;  but  the  rest  of  the  committee 
are  here  believed  to  have  been  unaware  of  it.  The  above 
fact  is  recorded  in  order  to  show,  that  if  ever  the  doctrinal 
system  should  be  reviewed,  it  should  be  done  under  some 
other  circumstances,  than  during  the  hurry  of  conventional 
business.  In  short,  the  review  should  be  made  by  select 
persons,  taking  due  time  for  so  important  a  measure.  After 
this,  the  only  thing  left  for  the  convention,  should  be  the 
adoption  or  the  rejection  of  what  had  been  so  prepared. 
This  would  be  as  near  as  circumstances  permit,  to  what 
was  done  in  England  at  the  reformation. 

It  is  not  here  designed  to  charge  anv  other  fault  on  the 

23 


178  Note  to  pa^e  31. 

articles  proposed.  They  are,  in  substance,  what  is  con- 
tained in  the  thirty-nine  Articles,  without  any  superaddition, 
except  in  the  particular  stated.  Hut  the  remarks  may 
serve  to  show,  that  in  the  work  of  clearing  that  code  of 
what  may  be  thought  unuecessary  positions,  there  is  the 
danger  of  admitting  some  novelty,  more  fruitful  of  contro- 
versy than  what  may  be  done  away.  In  the  present  in- 
stance,tbe  novelty  introduced  is  susceptible  of  the  construc- 
tion, of  obtruding  on  the  Church  the  notions  of  "  sacrifice," 
in  the  strict  and  proper  sense;  of"  altar,"  as  the  place  of 
it ;  and  of  "  priest,"  as  the  sacrificer. 

In  this  convention,  considerable  animosity  was  excited 
in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  on  the  subject 
of  the  election  of  a  reverend  gentleman  to  the  Episcopacy 
in  New-Jersey.  Agreeably  to  the  distinction  taken  by  the 
author,  of  recording  personal  matters  then  only  when  neces- 
sary to  illustrate  ecclesiastical  effects,  and  when  something- 
appears  on  the  journal  which  may  be  thus  elucidated ;  it 
may  be  proper  to  note  in  this  place,  that  whatever  ground 
was  taken  by  the  said  house  in  the  strict  construction  of 
the  canon,  fixing  the  number  of  clerical  incumbents  in  a 
state  in  which  a  bishop  might  be  chosen  ;  there  was  a  more 
important  reason  at  the  bottom  of  the  objection  made. 
The  truth  is,  that  the  gentleman  elected  was  considered  by 
his  brethren  generally,  as  being  more  attached  to  the  doc- 
trines and  the  practices  obtaining  in  some  other  churches, 
than  to  those  of  his  own.  What  rendered  the  management 
of  the  case  the  more  difficult,  was  his  being  brought  for- 
wards by  some  gentlemen,  who  had  always  professed  the 
strongest  disapprobation  of  the  least  deviation  from  the 
institutions  of  the  Church.  No  doubt,  they  thought  they 
perceived  some  advantages,  counterbalancing  the  unques- 
tionable fiict,  that  the  bishop  elect  had  been  not  a  little 
reprehensible  in  that  line.  The  bishops  kept  themselves 
from  taking  any  interest  in  the  subject;  no  one  of  them 
expressing  his  opinion,  so  far  as  is  here  known.  It  is  to 
be  hoped,  that  their  conduct  will  be  the  same  on  any  similar 
occasions  which  may  occur.  Delicacy  requires  this  ;  as,  in 
the  case  of  the  requisite  testimonials,  the  approbation  of 
the  consecrating  bishops  will  still  be  necessary. 

Bishop  Bass  having  been  consecrated  between  the  dates 
of  the  last  convention  and  the  present ;  it  may  be  proper  in 
this  place  to  guard  against  any  false  impressions  which 
might  be  made,  at  the  time  of  the  former  application ;  and 
a  paper  purporting  to  be  the  dissent  of  two  clergymen. 


Note  lo  page  33.  1 79 

This  may  otherwise  be  thought  to  have  influenced  the 
determination  in  the  first  instance,  and  to  liave  prevented 
the  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass.  But  it  would  be  a  mistake. 
The  objections  referred  to,  were  generally  supposed  to 
receive  no  weight  from  the  characters  of  the  two  objecting 
clergymen.  They  were  represented  as  being  not  at  all 
attached  to  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  Of  this,  or  of  the  contrary,  the  bishops  possessed 
no  such  evidence,  as  was  sufficient  to  be  a  ground  of  their 
conduct  at  the  time.  There  was  no  use  in  looking  out  for 
evidence,  as  there  was  other  ground  on  which  the  conse- 
cration was  declined — the  want  of  the  requisite  number  of 
bishops  to  be  consecrated  in  England.  When  Bishop  Bass 
was  subsequently  admitted  to  the  Episcopacy,  the  bishops 
who  consecrated  him  had  made  up  their  minds  on  the 
merits  of  the  preceding  objection  to  him. 

There  was  also  a  paper,  purporting  to  be  the  dissent  of 
his  own  vestry,  which  was  denied  and  found  to  be  not  true- 


N.  Page  33.     Of  the  Convention  in  1801. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Abraham  Beach  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies.  The  secretaries,  were  the  Rev.  Henry 
Waddell,  of  the  former  house,  and  the  Rev.  Ashbel  Baldwin, 
of  the  latter.  The  occasion  was  opened  with  a  sermon  by 
the  presiding  bishop. 

No  sooner  were  the  convention  organized,  than  there 
came  from  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  a  call 
for  a  letter  w  hich  they  understood  to  have  been  sent  to  the 
author  by  Bishop  Provoost,  on  the  sidjject  of  his  resigning 
of  the  Episcopal  jurisdiction.  This  measure  raised  a  very 
serious  question,  made  the  more  important  by  its  being 
unexpected.  The  whole  of  the  merits  of  it,  so  far  as  it 
was  discussed  at  the  time,  is  in  the  entry  of  the  House  of 
Bishops  on  their  journal:  which  is  therefore  given  in  the 
Appendix,  JNo.  24. 

As  the  articles  were  at  last  established  by  this  conven- 
tion, the  author  thinks  it  may  be  of  use,  to  give  a  narrative 
of  some  particulars  in  the  management  of  that  matter ;  in 
addition  to  what  has  been  stated  relative  to  the  proceeding 
in  1792. 

When  the  book  was  edited  with  the  proposed  alteration* 


180  Nok  io  page  33. 

ol"  1785  ;  no  sooner  were  they  known  in  the  diftbrcnt  states, 
than  the  sentiment  became  general,  that  they  were  not  to 
be  received  withont  alterations  ;  while  yet  there  was  no- 
thini;  like  unanimity,  in  regard  to  what  the  alterations 
should  be.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  thirty- 
nine  Articles.  Some  changes,  independently  on  what  was 
of  a  local  and  political  nature,  seemed  desired  by  all:  but 
of  any  considerable  agreement  in  particulars,  there  was 
little  prospect. 

Accordingly,  the  Churcli  was  left  in  a  situation  very  em- 
barrassing, in  regard  to  the  standard  of  her  doctrinal  pro- 
fession. On  the  one  hand,  the  articles,  with  the  exception 
of  the  political  parts,  the  obligation  of  which  had  been 
abrogated  by  Divine  Providence  through  the  instrumentality 
of  the  revolution,  were  still  the  acknowledged  faith  of  the 
Church  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  could  not  be  edited 
as  such,  without  changes  at  least  in  the  manner  of  exhibit- 
ing them,  which  no  individual  had  a  right  to  regulate. 
What  rendered  the  situation  of  the  Church  the  worse  in  this 
respect,  was,  that  it  suited  the  opinions  of  some,  to  declare 
in  consequence  of  it,  that  she  had  no  articles,  and  could 
have  none,  until  they  should  be  framed  by  a  convention,  and 
established  by  its  authority.  In  support  of  this  sentiment, 
ihey  pleaded  what  has  been  stated  as  the  very  exceptionable 
manner  of  doing  business,  adopted  by  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies  in  the  year  1789.  That  house,  in  regard 
to  every  part  of  the  Prayer  Book  on  which  they  acted, 
brought  the  office  forward  as  a  matter  originating  with 
them,  and  not  their  alterations,  as  affecting  an  office 
already  known  and  of  obligation.  It  was  answered,  that 
this  was  an  assumption  of  but  one  of  the  houses  of  a  single 
convention;  that  the  other  house  had  even  then  adopted  a 
contrary  course;  that  the  same  had  been  done  in  all  the 
preceding  conventions,  and  that  in  the  only  subsecjuent  con- 
vention in  which  there  had  been  any  alteration  of  a  fornicr 
standard — meaning  of  the  ordinal,  altered  in  1792 — it  had 
been  so  acted  on,  as  to  acknowledge  the  obligation  of  the 
old  forms,  with  the  exception  of  the  political  parts,  until 
altered.  This  seems  conclusive  reasoning:  and  yet  the 
opposite  doctrine  was  held  by  many  ;  which  threatened  un- 
happy consequences. 

During  the  convention  of  1789,  although  nothing  was 
done  relatively  to  the  articles,  there  was  much  serious  con- 
versation on  the  subject :  when  the  author  was  surprised  to 
find,  that  Bishop  Scabury,  the  only  bishop  at  the  convention 


Note  lo  page  33.  \^\ 

besides  iiimsclf,  doubted  of  the  need  ot*  articles ;  and  was 
rather  inchned  to  believe,  that  the  object  of  tlieiii  might  be 
accomplished  through  the   medium  of  the   liti;rgy.  ^  This 
was  so  wide  of  what  might  have  been  expected  from  his 
usual  turn  of  sentiment,  that,  to  the  author,  there  seemed 
at  the  time  no  way  of  accounting  for  it,  otherwise  than  by 
the  supposition,  that  the  bishop  conceived  the  articles  to  bo 
nearer  to  the  height  of  Calvinism,  than  they  are  found  to 
be  on  due  consideration  of  their  history,  and  of  cotemporary 
controversies.     But  it  has  since  appeared,  tiiat  there  had 
never  been  the  thirty-nine  Articles  or  any  such  standard  in 
the  non-juring  Church  of  Scotland,  in  which  Bishop  Seabury 
was  consecrated,  and  to  the  ways  of  which  lie  was  very 
much  attached.     But  the  said  Church,  very  soon  after  t!ie 
time  here  referred  to,  and  when  her  clergy  took  the  oaths 
to    the    government,    manifested    their    consent    with    the 
Church  of  England,  by  adopting  her  thirty-nine  Articles. 
Indeed,  there  was  never  supposed  to  have  existed  a  dis- 
agreement in  regard  to  doctrine:   but  it  was  the  result  of 
the  independency  of  each  Church  on  the  other.* 

In  the  convention  of  1702,  the  subject  had  been  discussed 
among  the  bishops  in  friendly  conversation,  when  the 
opinions  of  Bishops  Provoost  and  Madison  were  directly 
against  the  having  of  articles,  while  Bisiiop  Claggett  and 
the  author  were  in  favour  of  them.  The  remarks  of  Bishop 
Seabury  were  general;  rather  in  the  way  of  doubt  as  to  the 
necessity  of  articles;  although,  on  the  other  side,  he  acknow- 
ledged his  inability  to  answer  an  argument  pressed  on  him 
— that  without  them,  individual  ministers  would  have  to  do 
by  their  respective  will  and  authority,  what  had  better  be 
done  by  known  law,  for  the  preventing  of  the  delivery  of 
opposite  doctrines  to  their  flocks,  by  different  preachers. 

However  moderate  or  uncertain  Bishop  Seabury  was  on 
the  subject,  the  clergy  and  the  laity  of  his  diocese  thought 
differently  ;  as  appeared  in  the  convention  of  1799,  held  not 
long  after  his  decease.     At  the   pressing   instance  of  the 


In  Mr.  Belsliam's  Life  of  Mr.  Theophilns  Lindsey,  Bishop  Seabury  \s  re- 
presented as  a  Calvinist.  Nothing  can  he  further  from  the  trutJi.  In  the  same 
work,  there  is  an  anecdote  tending  to  lower  his  character,  on  account  of  an  inci- 
dent which  took  place  at  a  commencement  in  New-Haven,  in  which  the  bishop 
had  no  more  to  say  than  Mr.  Belsham  himself;  as  the  author  has  been  informed 
on  the  best  autho^nty.  It  was  equally  unworthy  of  the  biograoher,  to  speak  with 
contempt  ol  the  fccottish  consecrators  of  the  bishop,  not  only  because  their  charao^ 
ters  repel  the  charge  of  ignorance  thrown  on  them,  but,  because  their  haviriff 
been  so  long  under  the  lash  of  the  law,  for  adherence  to  the  dictates  of  their  con- 
sciences,  ought  to  have  produced  a  fellow-feeling  in  a  man  similarly  situated 


182  Note  to  page  33. 

deputies  from  that  state,  and  in  consequence  of  instructions 
to  them,  the  business  was  then  entered  on  ;  although  pro- 
bably with  the  |)resutnption  on  the  minds  of  the  proposers, 
that  it  would  be  finished  during  the  session.  It  however 
happened  otherwise;  the  matter  then  ending  with  a  proposed 
body  of  articles  wholly  new  in  form,  edited  with  the  journal. 
The  opinion  has  been  already  intimated,  that  this  was  a 
very  injudicious  measure;  but  there  may  now  be  added,  that 
it  proved  beneficial  in  its  unexpected  consequences.  It  ap- 
peared an  injudicious  measure,  on  the  same  ground  on 
which  the  proposal  of  1785  was  found  to  be  such:  that  is, 
fis  unsettling  a  present  fixture,  without  any  reasonable 
prospect  of  establishing  a  substitute.  If  it  were  beneficial 
in  its  consequences,  this  happened  by  its  showing  of  the  im- 
probability of  agreement  in  a  new  form,  and  its  thus  con- 
tributing to  the  recognizing  of  the  old  articles.  Even  the 
mistakes  of  readers  contributed  to  this  effect.  For  it  is 
astonishing  how  many,  even  of  the  clergy,  considered  what 
was  edited  as  proposed  for  the  acceptance  of  a  future  con- 
vention ;  whereas  it  was  only  recorded  by  one  of  the  houses 
to  be  matter  of  future  discussion.  As  for  the  bishops, 
they  never  saw  the  contemplated  articles,  before  they  were 
printed  with  the  journal ;  and  they  who  read  attentively 
must  perceive,  that  it  was  merely  a  report  of  a  committee 
of  the  other  house,  without  any  evidence  of  their  approving 
of  a  single  sentence  of  it.  These  remarks  should  be  con- 
sidered as  having  no  reference  to  any  question  concerning 
the  correctness  of  the  report.  Let  it  have  been  correct  or 
not;  and  although  the  author  thinks  it  substantially  cor- 
rect, yet  he  is  confident,  that  the  issue  must  have  been  the 
same. 

That  issue  is  the  adoption  of  the  articles,  as  edited  by  the 
convention  of  the  present  year.  Even  during  the  session  of 
the  body,  and  when  the  sentiment  had  obtained  generally, 
that  no  new  set  of  articles  should  be  attempted,  the  author 
was  often  assailed  by  members  who  had  adopted  the  prin- 
ciple ;  urging,  each  of  them,  that  there  might  be  an  exemp- 
tion in  regard  to  some  one  point,  the  most  desired  by  him 
to  be  corrected.  To  all  ajjplications  of  this  sort,  his  answer 
was,  that  he  was  content  to  accept  the  articles  as  they  were, 
(the  political  parts  being  understood  to  be  already  altered, 
without  any  conventional  act)  as  the  ground  of  union;  that 
if  they  should  be  thrown  open  to  discussion,  there  were  va- 
rious particulars  in  which  he  thought  they  might  be  im- 
proved; that  all  those  particulars  he  should  think  himself 


yule  to  page  S3.  j  35. 

bound  in  conscience  to  bring  forwanls;  that  no  doubt  many 
other  members  would  do  the  like  ;  and  that  thcn—Whai 
probability  was  there,  of  there  being  edited  any  articles? 

The  author  having  had  so  much  occasion,  in' the  relation 
of  the  proceedings  of  this  business,  to  refer  to  his  own  con- 
duct, he  thinks  that  there  will  be  propriety  in  his  presentincr 
of  the  grounds  of  it.  '' 

On  the  general  question— Wiiether  it  be  expedient  to 
have  a  body  of  articles,  it  has  always  appeared,  as  already 
hmted,  that  to  establish  them,  is  merely  to  accomplish  by  a 
general  regulation,  what  will  otherwise  be  done  by  indivi- 
dual ministers  at  will,  and  this,  sometimes,  in  intemperate 
and  scandalous  opposition  to  one  another.  For  instance, 
in  relation  to  the  divinity  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  and  the 
atonement  made  by  him  for  sin,  it  cannot  be  conceived, 
that  an  advocate  for  these  doctrines  will  knowingly  permit 
them  to  be  contradicted  in  his  pulpit,  or,  that  a* denier  of 
them  will  permit  them  to  be  advocated  or  acted  on  in  his. 
Accordingly,  there  will  be  articles,  written  or  unwritten- 
and  the  inquiry  should  be  confined  to  the  point  of  the  most 
judicious  depositary  of  the  power. 

When  the  author  was  in  England,  being  one  day  in  com- 
pany with  a  Unitarian  minister— a  gentleman  of  considera- 
ble note  in  the  literary  world— liberty  was  taken  to  inquire 
m  what  way  the  societies  of  his  faith  held  their  places  of 
worship,  and  whether,  as  in  America,  the  property  were 
vested  in  persons  chosen  by  the  congregations.     He  an- 
swered with  a  smile— Oh  no  ;  for  then,  in  consequence  of 
the  ease  with  which  respectable  applicants  are  permitted  to 
take  pews  among  us,  it  might  happen,  that  in  the  choice  of 
a  mmister,  an  interest  would  be  created  in  favour  of  a  pas- 
tor,  not   entertaining  the   belief,   for  the   maintenance  of 
which  a  house  had  been  erected.     He  said,  that  to  guard 
against  this,  the  meeting-houses  were  vested  in  persons  who 
may  be  depended  on ;  and  who  perpetuate  the  trust  to  others 
of  the  same  faith.     What  is  this,  but  an  indirect  way  of  ac- 
complishing the  object  for  which  articles  are  desio-ned  ? 
There  was  not  omitted  a  remark  to  the  effect  in  the  conl 
versation  alluded  to  :  a  freedom,  which  grew  out  of  a  pre- 
vious conversation  on  the  subject. 

The  house  of  worship  especially  referred  to,  was  that 
known  by  the  name  of  "  Essex-street  Chapel."  Within 
these  few  years  there  has  been  published  the  life  of  the  Rev. 
Theophilus  Lindsey,  its  first  minister,  by  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Belsham,  who  is  now  its  pastor.     From  the  work  it  appears. 


184  Nvtf  to  pao-€  \\{\. 

tlmt  the  trustees  of  the  buildin^^  have  ordered  the  Book  of 
(?oi!Hi!ou  Prayer,  as  corrected  by  Mr.  Lindsey,  to  be  depo- 
sited in  the  chest  with  tlie  title  deeds,  to  be  the  rule  of  wor- 
nhip  in  future,  and  no  alterations  to  be  permitted,  without 
the  consent  of  the  major  numlicr  of  the  trustees- 
It  ought  not  to  be  thought  an  indecorum,  towards  a  mode 
of  profession  with  which  the  author  has  no  concern,  to  notice 
the  above  particular  as  an  historic  fact,  and  to  apply  it  to 
the  illustration  of  the  impracticability  of  the  principle  on 
which  the  theory  in  question  is  grounded. 

In  the  book  referred  to,  there  is  an  office  for  infant  bap- 
tism; why  should  this  be  required  by  a  permanent  regula- 
tion, when  some  professing  Christians  confine  the  institution 
to  adults,  and  others  allow  of  no  baptism,  but  that  of  the 
Spirit?  The  remark  applies  to  the  celebrating  of  the 
eucharist  under  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  in  opposi- 
tion to  those  who  contend  for  spiritual  feeding  only.  In 
relation  to  both  the  sacraments,  some,  who  acknowledge 
the  external  celebration  of  them  by  the  apostles,  affirm, 
that  the  ordinances  were  limited  to  the  apostolic  age.  The 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  commonly  called  Sunday,  is 
exacted  throughout  the  book;  but  why,  when  there  are 
persons  who  conscientiously  stickle  for  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week?  Other  questions  might  be  proposed;  and  who 
knows  what  new  opinions  may  arise,  which  may  be  thought 
worthy  of  sufi'erance,  and  accordingly  draw  the  book  out  of 
the  chest?  The  compiler  of  it  was  so  sensible  of  this,  that 
in  his  last  review,  he  omitted  the  Apostles'  Creed  ;  and  one 
of  his  reasons  was — "  no  man  or  number  of  men  together, 
have  any  authority  to  make  a  creed  for  others."  This 
brings  the  matter  to  a  question  of  words;  since,  in  the 
above,  it  is  impossible  to  act  without  a  declaration  of  belief, 
although  not  under  the  name  of  a  creed. 

In  a  note,  the  reasonableness  of  the  proceeding  is  de- 
fended on  the  principle,  that  the  trustees,  who  have  the 
custody  of  the  book,  and  thereby  jurisdiction  over  the  wor- 
ship of  the  chai)el,  are  the  j)roprietors  of  it.  Let  but  the 
plea  be  extended  to  any  church  or  chapel,  in  any  part  of 
England  or  of  America,  with  the  proviso  that  none  are  com- 
pelled to  join  in  the  worship  performed  in  it,  and  there 
ceases  all  ground  of  complaint  on  the  subject  of  confessions 
and  creeds. 

These  things  are  not  said  without  the  conviction,  that,  in 
the  premises,  ecclesiastical  authority  is  liable  to  be  extended 
much  too  far.     All  contended  for  is,  that  this  species  of  dis- 


iSi'oie  to  page  33.  |g5 

cipline  must  bo  exercised  in  one  shape  or  in  another.  If. 
is  called  discipline  :  for  as  to  the  truth  of  synodical  detcrmi- 
imtion?!,  further  than  as  they  agree  with  scripture,  no  sound 
Protestant  will  airu  ni  it. 

Accordingly,  we  are  necessarily  led  to  the  question, 
whether  the  proper  mean  be  the  formula  of  the  thirty-nine 
Articles.  God  forbid  that  they  should  be  admitted,  other- 
wise than  on  tlie  ground  of  their  being  in  substance  a  body 
of  divine  truth  ;  \vhich  they  may  be,  consistently  with  incor- 
rect statements  in  some  points,  not  necessarily  involved  in 
that  object.  For  the  illustrating  of  this  distinction,  there 
shall  be  here  cited  an  instance,  which,  it  is  supposed,  will 
admit  of  no  dispute,  f  n  the  sixth  article,  the  books  of  holy 
scripture  are  aliirmed  to  be  the  rule  of  faith;  and  the  re- 
quired subscription  is  evidently  inconsistent  with  the  rejec- 
tion of  any  of  the  books  specified.  But  when  there  are 
introduced  the  incidental  expressions — "  of  which  there 
never  was  aiiy  doubt  in  the  Church;"  it  is  apparently  con- 
tradictory to  what  ecclesiastical  history  informs  us,  ni  re- 
^av(]  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  second  Epistle  of 
St.  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  second  and  third 
Epistles  of  St.  John,  and  the  Apocalypse:  concerning  all  of 
which  there  were  doubts,  although  cleared  ui)  on  full  in- 
quiry. It  is  within  the  meaning  of  the  form  of  subscription 
in  this  Church,  that  the  prominent  fact  of  the  authenticity  of 
those  books  may  be  acknowledged,  while  the  subordinate 
fact,  couched  under  the  recited  expressions,  is  rejected. 
It  is  not  equally  manifest  that  the  same  latitude  of  inter- 
pretation is  allowable  on  the  ground  of  the  form  of  subscrip- 
tion in  the  Church  of  England. 

IJut  it  will  be  said,  that  supposing  the  articles  to  contain 
the  whole  substance  of  revealed  truth,  it  is  the  fault  of  them 
that  they  contain  much  more,  embracing  the  tenets  of  the 
Calvinistic  system.  In  contrariety  to  this  assertion,  the 
persuasion  is  entertained,  that  they  will  be  found,  on  a  dili- 
gent attention  to  the  subject,  to  have  been  framed  with  a 
studied  latitude  on  the  questions,  which  were  afterward 
denominated  the  five  points,  in  the  controversy  between  the 
Calvinists  and  the  Arminians  ;  this,  with  the  exception  of 
the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance,  to  which  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  the  Church  of  England  stands  opposed;  the  doctrine 
not  being  held  at  that  time  by  the  description  of  people 
afterward  called  Calvinists,  who  as  yet  continued  in  the 
opinion  of  St.  Austin  in  that  particular.  It  may  be  proved, 
that  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  when  the  articles  wore 

24 


186"  Note  to  page '^. 

framed,  there  was  a  diversity  of  sentiments  on  those  points, 
und  yet,  that  neither  side  complained  of  their  being  excUided. 
Far  from  it,  when,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  Calvinism 
came  in  with  greater  authority  from  Geneva,  the  constant 
complaint  of  the  Puritans  was,  that  the  articles  were  not 
sufficiently  evangelical  in  that  matter.  Hence  the  framing 
of  what  were  called  the  Lambeth  articles,  and  the  pressing 
of  them  at  that  time,  and  afterward  in  the  reign  of  King 
James,  although  without  effect.  It  is  but  to  compare  the 
thirty-nine  Articles  with  the  Westminster  confession,  or  with 
the  decrees  of  the  synod  of  Dort,  to  perceive  how  general 
and  guarded  the  lirst  were,  on  the  topics  on  which  the  others 
are  very  particular  and  express.  Let  these  remarks  suffice 
on  a  subject,  on  which  it  ought  not  to  be  expected  to  be  in 
this  place  more  minute. 

For  the  form  of  subscription  in  this  Church,  and  for  that 
required  in  the  Church  of  England,  see  the  Appendix,  No. 
25. 

But  supposing  all  said  above  to  be  correct,  it  will  still  be 
asked — Are  these  articles  so  perfect  that  there  can  be  no 
possible  improvement  on  them?     If  this  be  not  so,  are  they 
to  remain  for  ever,  with  known  and  acknowledged  imper- 
fection?    And  if  this  be  not  contended  for,  what  are  the 
circumstances  which  will  render  the  altering  of  them  an  ex- 
pedient measure?     To  these  questions  it  is  answered,  not 
without  the  answerer's  distrust  of  his  own  judgment,  first, 
that  in  a  few  instances,  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  may  be 
expressed  more  satisfactorily  to  his  mind  ;  that  therefore, 
in  the  next  place,  he  does  not  arrogate  to  them  perpetuity  ; 
but  that  furtlier,  before  any  altering  of  them  be  attempted, 
these  two  circumstances  should  concur — first,  a  better  es- 
tablishment in  the  estimation  of  the  Church  generally,  of 
the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  her,  as  yet  a  modern  institu- 
tion ;    and   how   much   this  must   depend  on   the   general 
opinion   entertained  of  the    piety,  the  learning,   and  the 
lives  of  those  who  take  an  active  part  in  her  concerns,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  calculate,  as  also  what  prospect  there 
may  be  of  the  increase  of  the  measure  of  the  good  which 
we  may  have  among  us,  in  these  respects.     The  other  cir- 
cumstance, as  declared  under  a  former  head,  is  a  general 
conviction  of  the  necessity  of  committing  a  matter  of  this 
sort  to  be  prepared  by  a  few,  with  the  advantages  of  due 
time  and  deliberation:  what  is  so  prepared  to  be  laid  be- 
fore the  body,  to  be  by  them  adopted  or  rejected,  without 
discussion. 


Noie  to  page  33.  187 

These  sentiments  are  g:iven,  under  a  sense  of  responsi- 
bility to  the  great  Head  of  the  Cliurrh  ;  and  under  the  con- 
viction, that  until  tiie  two  stated  circumstances  shall  combine, 
a  new  code  of  articles  will  have  tlie  effect  of  S]>litiin<;  the 
Church  into  no  one  knows  how  many  different  communions, 
very  much  to  the  hinderance  of  true  piety,  and  of  those 
characteristics  of  our  communion,  in  which  we  suppose  it 
to  approach  nearer  than  others,  to  the  standard  of  the  best 
ages. 

In  this  convention,  the  question  of  recommending  to  the 
Episcopacy  the  clergyman  elected  to  it,  as   related   under 
the  head  of  the  last  preceding  convention,  came  to  a  crisis. 
The  Church  in  New-Jersey  persevered  in  the  election  of 
him  ;  and  there  was  now  no  longer  reason  to  hesitate,  for 
want  of  a  sufficient  number  of  incumbents  :    because  the 
question  of  fact    had   been   referred  by   the   last   General 
Convention,  to  the  convention  of  the  particular  state  which 
had  decided  in  the  affirmative.    These  things  were  reported 
to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  ;  and  the  result, 
was  a  direct  refusal  to  recommend.    The  incident,  although 
given  in  the  journal,  should  not  be  noticed  in  these  remarks, 
were  it  not  to  record,  that  the  extreme  dissatisfaction  con- 
ceived by  a  few  gentlemen,  was  prevented  from  ending  in 
the  inconveniences  of  which  there  was  entertained  an  ap- 
prehension, by  some  controversies  of  a  parochial  description. 
Until  these  took  place,  the  few  gentlemen  referred  to  had 
adopted  so  zealously  the  cause  of  the  rejected  clergyman, 
that  they    contemplated   an  application  to   the   Episcopal 
Church  in  Scotland.     This  would   certainly   have  failed: 
but  the  project  was  communicated  by  one  of  the  gentlemen 
to  the  author.     The  bishop  elect,  a  few  years  afterward, 
joined  the  Presbyterian  Church,  probably  in  consequence 
of  the  parochial  controversies  referred  to  ;  which  had  also 
arrested  the  proceedings  in  his  favour  in   regard  to  the 
Episcopacy. 


O.  Page  33.     Of  the  Convention  in  1804. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  Dr. 
Beach,  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  The 
secretaries  of  the  two  houses,  were  the  Rev.  Cave  Jones,  of 
the  former,  and  the  Rev.  John  H.  Hobart,  of  the  latter. 

The  opening  sermon  was  by  Bishop  Moore. 


186  Nutt  O  iu  ^agc  33. 

There  needs  some  explanation  of  what  aijpeais  on  the 
journal,  concerning-  the  Rev.  Animi  lvO£:ers. 

lie  was  a  native  of  Connecticut,  and  educated  at  Yale 
College.  During  the  Episcopacy  of  Kishop  Seabury,  in- 
terest was  making  among  the  clergy,  to  procure  the  ordi- 
nation of  Rogers.  Cut  the  bishop  perceiving  it,  and  in 
consequence  of  au  unfavourable  opinion  entertained,  de- 
clared that  he  never  would  ordain  him.  He  afterward 
went  into  the  back  parts  of  the  state  of  New- York ;  and 
there,  by  efforts  of  zeal  and  apparent  prospect  of  usefulness, 
laid  the  foundation  of  an  application  for  holy  orders,  to 
Bishop  Provoost.  While  the  case  was  under  consideration, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Beach,  having  heard  that  Rogers  had  been 
rejected  in  Connecticut,  made  objections.  On  this,  he  re- 
paired to  that  state  with  the  view  of  procuring  from  the 
Rev.  Philo  Perry,  the  secretary  of  the  convention  of  the 
diocese,  a  certificate  that  there  did  not  appear  on  the 
minutes  any  entry  of  the  rejection  of  the  j)erson  in  question. 
Such  a  certificate  might  have  been  given  v.'ith  great  truth, 
because  no  formal  application  had  been  made.  But  Philo 
Perry  being  from  home,  Ammi  Rogers  fabricated  a  certi- 
ficate in  his  name;  not  only  testifying  to  the  said  fact,  but 
going  to  the  point  of  the  correct  life  and  conversation  of 
the  bearer.  The  last  circumstance  is  of  importance;  be- 
cause, although  a  certificate  as  to  his  not  having  applied 
for  and  been  refused  orders,  was  obtained  from  Philo  Perry 
afterward,  yet  it  went  no  further. 

With  the  certificate  forged  as  above,  Ammi  Rogers 
waited  on  Dr.  Beach  ;  and  after  thus  satisfying  him,  re- 
quested permission  to  have  the  certificate  in  his  possession 
for  a  while;  in  order  to  communicate  it  to  some  friends  in 
New- York,  who  had  heard  the  story  against  him.  This 
was  assented  to.  The  certificate  was  never  returned  :  but 
in  the  mean  time.  Dr.  ]>cach,  relying  on  the  integrity  of  it, 
withdrew  his  ojjjjosition,  and  Ammi  Rogers  was  ordained. 

In  a  few  years  alter  his  ordination,  he  returned  to  his 
native  state,  and  made  himself  popular  at  Stamford.  The 
bishop  and  the  clergy  refused  to  know  him  as  belonging  to 
the  diocese:  and  it  was  this  which  brought  beiore  the  House 
of  Bishops,  by  mutual  consent,  the  question  to  which  diocese 
he  belonged. 

In  the  investigation  of  this  question,  not  only  was  the 
preceding  fact  proved  by  unquestionable  testimony,  es|)e- 
cially  the  afiidavit  of  Dr.  Beach  ;  but  the  clerical  de|)uties 
from  Connecticut,  while  they  treated   the  man  with  the 


Note  O  to  pu'^e  33.  \^\) 

utmost  decorum,  produced  ample  evidence  of  a  ftictious 
and  mischievous  disposition  in  him.    Still,  the  utmost  length 
to  which  the  bishops  at  first  thought  themselves  warranted 
to  go,  was,  in  giving  their  opinion  on  the  case  submitted  to 
them,  to  notice  incidentally  the  iniquity  which  had  come 
within  their  knowledge,  in  the  investigation  of  the  subject. 
Here  they  should  have  stopped.     But   unfortunately,  one 
of  the  bishops  having  proposed  that  there  should  be  included 
a  recommendation  to  degrade  the  man  from  the  ministry ; 
the  others,   under  the  sensibility  excited  by  the  evidence  of 
his  great  unworthiness  and  hisiiagitious  conduct,  consented 
to  the  proposal.     This  was  ill  judged,  for  these  two  reasons  : 
lirst,  it  would  give  room,  in  tlie  event  of  a  condemnation, 
to  object,  that  the  opinion  of  the  bishops,  extra-judicially 
expressed,  had  obtained  undue  influence  over  the  minds  of 
those  who  were  more  properly  the  ecclesiastical  judges  of 
the  offender.     Perhaps,  the  same  objection  may  seem  to 
lie  against  the  noticing  of  the  forgery.     But  this  was  too 
glaring  a  fact  to   be   denied,    and  indeed  was   admitted: 
while,  on  a  succeeding  trial,  there  would  have  still  been  a 
Jaticude   as   to  the  degree   of  punishment   to  be  inHicted. 
Ihe  pomtmg  to  what  this  should  be  occasioned  the  other 
reason  referred  to,  by  contributing  to  what  is  here  thouo-ht 
to  be  the  error  into  which  the   bisiiop  and    the    cler"y°of 
Connecticut    subsequently   fell,    of  supposing    tlint   Ammi 
Kogers  had   been   tried   by  the  House  of  Bishops.     This 
they    never  contemplated,   and    indeed   would    have   been 
contrary  to  the  ecclesiastical  constitution. 

The  recording  of  this  transaction,  may  be  a  caution 
against  giving  way  in  convention  in  future  to  solicitation^ 
which  Will  probably  be  occasionally  made,  for  the  obtaining 
ot  determinations  on  points  personally  and  locally  intercsr- 
ing;  but  which  may  be  left,  without  the  endanoerin<r  of 
any  principle,  to  the  judicial  authority  of  the  Church  in 
each  state.  That  this  is  the  most  agreeable  to  the  ecclesi- 
astical constitution,  will  not  be  denied.  If  the  said  instru- 
ment be  not  wisely  contrived  in  this  particular,  still  it 
should  govern,  untd  altered  by  competent  authority.  The 
constitution,  however,  is  here  conceived  to  be  not  liable  to 
objection,  on  this  account :  and  it  is  supposed,  that  a  con- 
trary provision  would  be  found  impracticable ;  because  of 
tlie  long  intervals  between  the  meetings  of  the  General 
Conventions,  the  difficulty  of  keeping  them  together,  and 
other  circumstances  which  might  be  mentioned: 

After  the  rising  of  the  convention,  this  business  of  Ammi 


190  Note  O  tu  jjui^c  3:i. 

Rogers  threatened  serious  consequences  to  the  Church  in 
Connecticut,  owing  to  what  has  been  uh'eady  hinted — its 
having  been  there  conceived,  that  he  had  been  tried;  and 
that  nothing  remained,  except  to  declare  iiim  degraded. 

When  tiic  author  found,  that  what  the  bishops  had  re- 
corded on  their  minutes  was  so  materially  misunderstood, 
he  wrote  to  Bishop  3Ioore,  to  know  his  sense  of  the  matter; 
and  found,  from  a  letter  of  that  bishop  still  in  possession, 
that  there  was  a  perfect  coincidence  of  opinion  between 
them.  The  only  bishop  besides,  who  had  been  present — 
Bishop  Parker — had  died  in  a  very  short  time  after  his 
return  to  Boston.  Bishop  Jarvis  had  absented  himself, 
from  a  motive  of  delicacy ;  and  Bishop  Claggett  had  left 
the  city  on  his  journey  home,  before  any  judgment  had  been 
delivered.* 

In  the  form  in  which  the  business  stands  on  the  journal, 
there  does  not  sufficiently  appear  the  ground,  on  which  the 
bishops  consented  to  give  their  sentiments  on  the  question, 
as  to  the  jurisdiction  to  which  Ammi  Rogers  belonged. 
That  ground  was  in  the  urgent  solicitations  of  both  the 
parties;  which  were  thought  to  justify  the  expression  of 
opinion. 

The  author  supposes  it  due  to  the  nature  of  this  work, 
to  annex  to  it  the  judgment  of  the  bishops  in  the  case  of 
the  said  Ammi  Rogers.  Accordingly,  it  is  in  the  Appendix, 
No.  26. 

Notice  is  taken  on  the  journal  of  the  convention,  of  an 
application  from  the  Episcopal  Church  in  New-Jersey, 
relative  to  an  unhappy  dispute  there  subsisting  between  a 
minister  and  his  congregation.  As  the  issue  of  this  was  a 
canon,  the  object  of  which  was  novel  in  the  Episcopal 
Church,  and  the  consequences  of  which  may  be  in)portant; 
it  may  be  proper  to  record  the  origin  of  it,  and  the  general 
view  entertained  of  its  tendency  by  the  author. 

The  clergyman  in  contom|)hitiun,  was  j)ossesscd  of  ap- 
parent zeal,  and  unexceptionable  in  his  moral  conduct.  It 
is  difficult  to  ascertain  how  far  these  circumstances  should 
extend  lenity  to  what  cannot  in  itself  be  defended.  But 
certain  it  is,  that  he  had  nianifesled  a  leaning  to  practices 


*  The  author  and  Bishop  Moore  afterward  rrrfived  a  letter  from  the  com- 
mittee of  the  cleriiy  in  Connecticut,  requesting  advice  on  the  qnestion  of  again 
taking  up  the  bu.siness  of  Rogers,  and  granting  a  trial.  Both  of  those  applied  to 
advised  the  measure,  but  it  did  not  take  place.  It  would  have  been  more  discreet 
in  thera  to  have  withheld  their  advice,  until  thcj  should  have  known  that  it 
would  have  cflTect. 


Note  O  to  page  33.  191 

rery  difl'erent  from  those  of  his  Church.  In  addition  to 
this,  there  were  complaints  of  his  overbearing  of  the  vestry, 
and  of  his  taking  of  all  authority  to  himself,  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  teniporal  concerns  of  the  congregation.  That 
from  dissatisfaction  with  him  they  had  become  very  much 
lessened,  was  atfirmed  and  believed.  The  former  of  tho 
objections  he  confirmed,  by  joining  another  religious  com- 
munion, as  soon  as  his  severance  from  his  particular  con- 
gregation took  place. 

In  regard  to  the  merits  of  the  canon,  there  may  be  doubts 
concerning  the  principle,  on  the  ground  that  there  should 
be  no  severance  from  a  pastoral  charge,  except  as  the  re- 
sult of  a  trial  for  alleged  misconduct;  which  is  the  most 
agreeable  to  the  idea  of  exalting  law  above  will.  Besides, 
there  is  evirient  danger,  that  when  a  clergyman  should  be 
degraded,  his  congregation  will  avail  themselves  of  this 
canon,  from  a  false  tenderness,  and  thus,  while  they  rid 
themselves  of  the  man,  send  him  to  disgrace  the  Church 
elsewhere.  Nevertheless,  under  the  present  circumstances 
of  the  Church,  and  until  some  check  can  be  given  to  the 
ease  with  which  ministers  are  admitted  into  conjf relations, 
the  bishops  consented  to  the  canon.  It  deserves  the  name 
of  a  necessary,  but — it  is  hoped — only  temporary  evil.  The 
apprehension  of  the  abuse  of  it  has  been  verified. 

There  appears  on  the  journal  to  have  been  some  differ- 
ence of  opinion  between  the  houses,  in  reference  to  two 
canons,  and  occasioning  a  conference  proposed  by  the 
House  of  Bishops.  As  the  difference  did  not  involve  any 
important  principle,  and  as  it  was  done  away  by  mutual 
concession  in  the  conference,  no  notice  is  taken  of  it  in  these 
statements. 

It  was  in  this  convention  that  the  House  of  Bishops 
prescribed  the  course  of  ecclesiastical  study,  stitl  subsisting, 
for  students  in  theology.  This  was  doing  something  to- 
wards the  improving  of  the  literary  reputation  of  our 
ministry,  and  an  advance  towards  the  desirable  object  of  a 
seminary  or  seminaries,  in  which  the  preparation  of  can- 
didates may  be  the  better  secured  by  daily  examinations 
held  by  qualified  preceptors. 

At  this  convention  there  was  established,  as  proposed  by 
the  last,  a  change  of  the  season  of  holding  the  conventions. 
There  will  be  propriety  in  recording  the  reason.  It  was 
on  account  of  our  country's  having  been  for  some  years 
visited  by  epidemic  disease,  in  the  autumn. 

Agreeably  to  a  proposal  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  it 


19-  Note  to  page  34. 

having  been  there  moved  hy  IJishop  Jarvis,  the  business  of 
the  convention  was  conchided  by  prayer,  performed  by  the 
presidiiiir  bishoj),  in  the  presence  of  both  houses.  It  had 
been  the  rule  during-  every  convention,  to  liave  morning 
jjrayer  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  at  which 
the  bishops,  by  votes  of  their  body,  had  attended. 

The  city  of  Baltimore  was  fixed  on  as  the  place  of  the 
next  convention,  to  be  lield  on  the  third  Tuesday  in  May, 
180S. 


P.  Page  34.     Of  llie  Convention  0/I8O8. 

Bishop  AVhitc  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  Dr. 
Beach  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  The 
secretaries  of  the  two  houses,  were  the  Rev.  Dr.  James 
Whitehead,  of  the  former,  and  the  Ilev.  John  H.  Hobart, 
of  tlie  latter. 

Bishop  Parker,  who,  at  the  request  of  the  last  convention, 
was  to  have  opened  the  present  with  a  sermon,  being  de- 
ceased, that  olHce  was  discharged  by  the  presiding  bishop. 

The  thin  attendance  on  this  convention,  must  attract  the 
notice  of  every  one  who  shall  inspect  the  journal.  In  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  the  Church  was  re- 
presented from  seven  states  only ;  none  coming  from  Vir- 
ginia; on  the  account  of  the  Church  in  which  state,  a  city 
so  far  south  as  Baltimore  was  principally  chosen.  In  the 
tfouse  of  Bishops,  there  were  two  only — Bishop  Claggett 
and  the  author.  When  the  latter  repaired  to  the  place  of 
meeting,  it  was  under  an  apprehension,  having  learned  by 
letter  from  the  other  his  being  exceedingly  indisposed,  that 
the  (piestion  would  be  raised — Whether  a  single  bishop 
can  constitute  a  house.  On  this,  he  was  prepared  to  sustain 
the  affirmative,  as  being  the  most  agreeable  to  the  letter  of 
the  constitution ;  and  because,  on  the  contrary  supposition, 
there  could  have  been  nothing  done.  The  case,  however, 
would  have  been  very  disagreeable.  It  was  prevented  by 
the  attendance  of  Bishop  Claggett,  although  with  a  con- 
siderable degree  of  indisposition  ;  under  which  he  laboured 
during  the  whole  session.  Bishop  Jarvis  was  said  to  be 
indisposed  with  the  asthma,  and  Bishop  Moore  was  confined 
by  an  inllammation  in  his  eyes.  Why  Bishop  Madison 
was  absent,  was  not  known;  unless  he  were  prevented  by 
a  loss  sustained  of  a  son,  not  long  before. 


Note  to  page -i^.  VM 

\n  revi:siii2,'  and  arrano'mg  the  canons,  thorn  occnnTd 
rlothini^  niateruil,  besides  the  two  loilowini'-  particukirs. 

One  of  thesu  respected  candidates  for  holy  orders.  The 
proposed  canon  prescribed  different  examinations  to  be 
liekl,  daring-  the  time  in  wliich  a  case  should  be  under 
consideration  :  and  amon^  the  matters  to  be  inquired  into, 
was  the  |)arty's  being  possessed  of"  a  practical  knowledge 
of  religion."  When  this  came  before  the  bishops,  they 
could  form  no  idea  of  practical  knowledge.  They  knew, 
that  in  the  other  Iiouse  it  had  been  consented  to  by  the 
majority,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  an  exjiression  pressed  by 
some— that  of  "  an  experimental  knowledge  :"  an  expres- 
sion much  abused  by  its  application  to  feelings  merely 
animal,  and  unwelcome  on  that  account.  We  could,  how- 
ever, form  an  idea  of  the  sense  of  it  perfectly  unexception- 
able ;  supposing  it  to  be  such  knowledge  as  is  the  result  of 
experience.  But  the  bishops  did  not  |>erceive,  how  the 
candidate  could  satisfy  his  examiners  as  to  this  point,  on 
any  ottier  evidence  than  that  of  his  own  declarations;  the 
requiring  of  which  was  thought  liable  to  much  abuse.  Ac- 
cordingly, they  proposed  to  leave  out  the  clause  concerning 
"  practical  kncnvledge ;"  and  that  after  the  other  requisi- 
tions, there  should  be  inserted  an  admonition  to  the  candi- 
date, of  there  being  required  in  him  those  inward  graces, 
which  cannot  be  brought  to  any  outward  standard,  and  are 
named  in  scripture  "  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit" — by  which 
alone  his  sacred  influence  can  be  "  known." 

\n  addition  to  this,  the  bishops  sent  to  the  other  house  a 
paper,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy,  to  be  read  to  them, 
but  not  entered  on  their  journal,  in  the  jirinting  of  which  it 
accordingly  does  not  appear,  and  is  therefore  inserted  in  this 
place. 

"  Having  projjosed  the  omission  of  an  expression  which 
seems  designed  to  reciuire  inward  piety,  we  wish  to  be  clearly 
understood  in  tliis  matter. 

"  Far  be  it  from  us  to  suppose,  that  any  qualifications  are 
sufficient,  without  pious  affections,  the  effects  of  the  grace 
of  God  on  the  heart.  But  although  the  living  piously,  that 
is  in  a  visible  profession,  and  in  the  duties  attached  to  it, 
may  be  certified ;  yet,  the  actual  possession  of  piety  must  be 
the  subject  of  the  experience  of  the  party,  and  not  of  the 
testimony  of  his  fellow-men.  If  it  should  be  thought,  that 
they  may  ascertain  his  experience  by  an  inquiry  into  the 
movements  of  Ids  mind;  we  remark,  that  the  issue  must 
he  precarious,  independently  on  some  manifest  abuses  in- 
cident to  it. 

25 


lOi  Note  fo  j)aL>-e  M. 

"  The  Churcli  of  EiigUind  lias  always  contented  herself 
with  a  visible  prolession,  a  suitable  life,  and  the  solenm 
declarations  at  the  altar.  That  in  these  there  may  be 
imposition  and  insincerity,  is  unquestionable.  But  how 
they  would  have  been  prevented  by  further  requisition,  we 
do  not  discern.  We  recollect  within  that  Church  niany 
wise  and  holy  men,  who  have  been  satisfied  with  her  disci- 
jdine  in  this  particular.  But  we  doubt  of  there  having 
been  any  dissentients,  whose  opinions  we  would  wish  to  see 
influential  in  this  Church.  Vv'e  call  to  mind  a  certain 
period  in  the  history  of  England;  when  one  effect  of  the 
entire  prostration  of  lier  Church,  was  the  triumph  of  the 
principle  here  objected  to.  But  we  have  learned  too  much 
of  the  consequent  hypocrisy  and  tyranny,  to  be  reconciled 
to  any  thing  which  bids  fair  to  lead  to  the  same  result. 

'•  In  America,  a  tpiestion  raised  on  the  same  ground, 
divided  for  some  time  a  numerous  and  respectable  body  of 
Christians.  But  in  consequence  of  more  mature  reflection 
among  them,  the  controversy  has  been  dying  away;  and, 
we  believe,  that  there  is  now  very  little  of  it. 

"  But  what  in  our  opinion  should  overrule  all  doubt,  is 
not  only  the  scheme  of  scripture  generally,  as  to  the  requi- 
sition in  (piestion  ;  but  that  St.  Paul,  in  his  iirst  Epistle  to 
Timolhv,  where  he  lays  down  the  qualifications  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  says  not  a  word  of  any  kind  of  scrutiny, 
which  can  be  satisfied  only  by  the  testimony  of  the  party,, 
concerning  himself. 

'•  The  Subject  being  important,  we  have  thought  it  ex- 
pedient to  make  this  formal  profession  of  our  opinion." 

When  the  alteration  of  the  proposed  canon  by  the  bishops 
came  into  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  it 
occasioned  a  warm  debate,  which  turned  altogether  on  the 
word  "known:"  the  word  "manifested"  being  proposed  as 
a  substitute,  by  those  who  objected  to  the  other.  The 
reason  was,  there  being  some  in  the  convention  who  could 
not  brook  its  being  declared  in  a  canon,  that  a  man  could 
no  otherwise  know  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  Cod,  than 
by  his  fruits.  They  evidently  thought,  there  was  a  more 
immediate  communication  in  the  matter  at  issue;  although 
they  rested  their  objection  chiefly  on  the  supposition,  of  its 
cutting  ofi'  all  hope  from  a  dying  penitent;  as  if  such  a 
person  might  not  be  sensible  of  new  affections,  which  the 
Spirit  only  can  produce:  whatever  difference  there  may  be 
between  him  and  a  holy  liver,  as  to  the  certainty  of  those 
around  him  concerning  the  existence  of  such  affections. 


I^ole  to  page  34.  195 

Some,  without  deciding  on  which  side  the  truth  lay,    re- 
monstrated against  the  establishing  by  a  side-blow,  of  what 
they  called  a  controverted  point.     In  the  issue,  the  amend- 
ment of  the  bishops  was  accepted,  but  much  to  the  dissatis- 
faction of  the  dissentients,  who  even  talked  of  entering  a 
l)rotest.     After   the   business  of  the  day,  two  respectable 
clergyman,  who  had  argued  and  voted  in  t!ic  majority,  pri- 
vately recommended  to  the  consideration  of  the  two  bishops 
— whether  it  would  not  be  best  for  them  to  proj)ose  the 
change  of  "  known"  for  "  manifested  ;"  this  word  not  being 
opposed  to  their  belief,  although  not  so  precisely  suited  to 
the  sentiment  intended  to  beconveyeil.     Tlieir  niotive,  was 
the  expectation  until  now  entertained,  tiiat  the  convention 
wotdd  close  the  next  day,  with  a  conciliatory  spirit  on  all 
sides;  which  expectation  would  be  disappointed,  if  the  re- 
commended measure  should  be  rejected.     The  bishops,  in- 
fluenced by  the  same  motive,  complied  with  the  proposal. 
But  when  the  alteration  came  into  the  other  house,  there 
again  arose  a  warm  debate,  a  considerable  proportion  argu- 
ing against  the  acceptance  of  the  revision.     However,  the 
more  moderate  counsel  prevailed  ;  but  whether  to  any  'j-ood 
purpose,  can  be  known  only  by  future  events.     Tlietrans- 
action  is  recorded  under  the  mortifying  reflection,  that  there 
has  been  an  interference  in  the  counsels  of  this  Church,  of 
the  wild  and  pernicious  opinion  manifested  in  this  argument. 
After  the  session  was  ended,  in  company  with  a  member 
■who  had  distinguished  himself  in  the  minority,  the  author 
remarked  to  him,  that  in  the  institutions  of  the  Episcopal 
'Church,  there  was  nothing  like  the  opinion  which  he  seemed 
to  entertain.     He  defended  himself  by  the  seventeenth  ar- 
ticle, where   it  speaks  of  election  in  Christ,   as   "  full   of 
sweet,  pleasant  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  godly  persons, 
and  such  as  feel  in  themselves  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly 
members,  and  drawing  up  their  mind  to  high  and  heavenly 
things  ;"  words  evidently  harmonizing  with   the  position, 
that  "  by  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  only  his  holy  influence  can 
be  known,"     Should  such  reasoners  obtain  the  sway  in  the 
counsels  of  this  Church,  her  system  will  be  overturned. 

The  other  matter  relative  to  the  canons,  was  what  oc- 
curred concerning  the  oflice  of  induction,  established  at  the 
last  convention.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  the  consequences 
of  the  measure  will  be  an  illustration  of  the  maxim,  that 
"  the  art  of  governing  consists,  in  a  great  measure,  in  not; 
governing  too  much."     No  objection  had  been  made  to  the 


196  Note  to  page  ;J4.  rT'^. 

office;  but  the  lequirin!^  of  induction  as  cssciitial  to  a  valid 
settlement,  was  evidently  perceived  to  militate  against  the 
ideas  so  prevalent  in  many  places,  of  dismissing  ministers 
at  pleasure.  Now,  although  there  can  hardly  be  any  prin- 
ciple, more  evidently  hostile  to  the  permanent  respectability 
of  the  ministry,  yet  it  would  have  been  better  to  have  lel't 
the  correction  of  it  to  time  and  attendant  inconveniences, 
than  to  have  brought  the  full  force  of  it  into  operation  by 
the  measure  now  in  question.  Certainly  it  would  have  beeii 
best,  to  have  rested  the  service  on  a  recommendatory  ru- 
bric. In  Maryland,  the  measure  interfered  directly  with 
the  vestry-law.  From  Carolina  there  was  a  memorial, 
desiring  an  alteration  of  the  canon.  And  in  other  places, 
complaints  were  known  to  have  been  made.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  service  and  the  result  of  it  were  with  great  rea- 
son so  acceptable  to  some,  that  they  refused  to  concur  in 
doing  away  the  former  measure,  but  consented  to  the  dis- 
pensing with  it  in  those  states  or  diocesses,  in  which  it  in- 
terfered with  charters  or  usages.  In  this  siiape,  the  matter 
was  brought  before  the  bishops;  who  were  reluctant  to  the 
saying  of  any  thing,  liable  to  be  construed  into  an  approba- 
tion of  charters  or  usages,  which  they  hold  to  be  contrary 
to  good  order  in  the  Church.  Still,  the  consequences  of 
rejecting  the  canon  were  so  stated  to  them,  as  to  induce,  on 
their  part,  the  consenting  to  it ;  with  a  subjoined  declaration, 
that  it  should  not  be  construed  as  giving  a  sanction  to  the 
charters  and  the  usages  in  contemplation,  concerning  which 
they  also  ex|)ressed  the  hope,  that  they  will  in  time  be 
altered.  This  amendment  was  accepted,  and  the  canon 
passed. 

A  new  arrangement  of  the  canons  made  by  this  conven- 
tion, had  been  pressed  on  every  preceding  occasion,  and 
objected  to  by  the  author,  who  at  last  withdrew  his  oppo- 
sition, submitting  to  the  alleged  advantage,  of  having  all 
the  provisions  pertaining  to  the  same  subject  classed  to- 
gether. It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  the  course  of  conduct  will 
end  here,  at  least  for  a  considerable  time;  or  else,  in  the 
different  diocesses,  it  will  be  to  no  purpose  to  refer  to  any 
particular  canon,  because  of  the  uncertainty,  whether  it  will 
retain  its  station  after  the  next  triennial  convention.  It 
will  be  much  more  convenient,  to  exhibit  the  canons  of  each 
conventional  body  as  their  act ;  and  in  every  edition  of  the 
canons,  to  retain  the  titles  of  such  as  are  repealed,  printing 
the  titles  in  italics.  A  repeal  will  be  the  result  of  the  con- 
siderable  improvement  of  a  former   canon.     JBut  it   wa^ 


Note  to  jxigc  34.  197 

■obligatory  in  its  old  form,  while  it  remained  in  force,  and 
may  still  require  to  be  referred  to,  on  some  question  con- 
nected with  discipline.  The  title  will  direct  to  the  journal, 
which  will  show  how  the  canon  stood,  at  the  time  to  which 
it  is  desirable  to  apply  it. 

The  journal  shows,  that  there  was  accomplished  at  this 
convention,  what  has  been  from  the  beginning  ardently  de- 
sired by  many,  both  of  the  clergy  and  of  the  laity — the 
giving  of  a  full  negative  to  the  House  of  Bishops.  It  is  to 
be  hoped,  that  the  recollection  of  the  course  of  this  business, 
as  found  on  the  various  journals,  will  show  the  propriety  of 
leaving  to  time  and  mature  reflection,  to  effect  what  may 
be  for  a  while  opposed  by  prejudices,  not  to  be  disregarded 
without  extreme  danger.  What  is  here  said,  however,  is 
designed  of  those  prejudices  only,  which  may  be  yielded  to 
without  the  sacrifice  of  essential  principle.  This  was  the 
case  in  the  |)resent  instance,  and  must  have  been  perceived 
to  be  such,  even  by  those  who  conceive  the  highest  of  Epis- 
copal claims.  In  the  year  1785,  even  the  necessity  of  the 
presidency  of  a  bishop,  when  such  a  character  should  be 
obtained  by  consecration,  and  should  be  present  in  the  con- 
vention, was  rejected.  Still,  nothing  was  decreed  to  the 
contrary ;  and  in  the  next  year,  the  absurd  prejudice  against 
the  proposal  was  overruled.  When  another  constitution 
was  formed,  in  1789,  if  a  provision  for  the  Episcopal  nega- 
tive had  been  insisted  on,  it  would  have  been  destructive  of 
the  whole  system.  Nevertheless,  in  the  many  years  inter~ 
vening,  no  measure  has  passed,  under  the  refusal  of  the 
Episcopal  sanction.  Indeed,  it  may  be  a  question,  wliether, 
had  things  remained  on  the  old  footing  of  the  three-fifths, 
made  necessary  to  carry  any  resolutiou  contrary  to  the 
opinion  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  the  weight  of  their  nega- 
tive would  not  have  had  more  efl'ect  than  under  the  present 
change.  This  would  have  happened  in  the  following  man- 
ner. There  would  always  be  in  the  other  house  a  propor- 
tion, who  would  doubt  of  the  validity  of  a  measure,  adopted 
without  the  Episcopal  sanction.  Some  of  these  would  oc- 
casionally differ  from  the  bishops,  on  a  subject  under  con- 
sideration. But  when  the  dissent  of  the  bishops  should  have 
been  declared,  those  of  the  description  referred  to  would 
have  thrown  themselves  into  the  scale,  against  the  putting 
of  the  matter  to  the  test  of  the  three-fifths.  This  supposi- 
tion has  been  verified,  in  a  transaction  which  took  place 
between  the  two  houses  of  the  convention  of  1804.  It  is 
evident  to  the  author's  mind,  that  owing  to  the  causes  stated. 


1 1)8  Note  lo  page  34. 

while  it  would  be  scarcely  possible  ever  to  cany  a  measure 
against  the  bishops,  there  would  be  a  discouragement  of 
even  that  free  discussion  with  them,  which  may  be  expected 
to  take  place  sometimes,  under  their  present  full  possession 
of  a  negative. 

On  the  above  subject  there  is  an  error  in  tlie  journal,  re- 
specting the  votes  of  the  lay-gentlemen  from  Pennsylvania. 
It  is  there  said,  that  they  were  in  favour  of  the  resolution, 
but  voted  in  the  negative,  because  uninstructed  by  their 
constituents.  The  declaration  of  the  gentlemen  is,  that  they 
declined  voting  for  a  measure  of  which  they  approved,  be- 
cause it  did  not  appear  from  the  journals  of  their  state  con- 
ventions, that  the  projected  change  had  been  laid  before 
them,  as  the  constitution  has  prescribed.  Neither  had  the 
gentlemen  any  recollection,  that  this  was  done.  The  au- 
thor is  persuaded,  that  the  matter  was  notified  to  the  state 
convention  ;  but  how  it  happened  that  an  entry  was  omitted, 
he  knows  not.* 

The  reason  of  the  bishops  for  postponing  the  consideration 
of  the  degrees  of  consang-uinity  and  affinity  prohibiting 
marriage,  was  simply  as  stated  on  the  journal — the  weight 
of  the  subject,  and  the  partial  attendance  at  this  convention. 
They  did  not  compare  their  sentiments,  on  the  many  im- 
portant points  which  the  subject  brings  into  view. 

The  last  subject  had  been  brought  forward,  in  conse- 
quence of  an  instruction  from  the  Church  of  Maryland,  to 
the  deputies  from  that  state.  From  the  same  quarter  there 
was  a  proposal  made,  to  introduce  •'  A  Companion  to  the 
Altar,"  as  part  of  the  Prayer  J]ook.  The  reason  of  the 
rejection  of  the  proposal  by  the  bishops,  was  its  tending  to 
make  the  book  l)ulky.  Many  good  treatises,  may  be  use- 
fully bound  up  with  the  Prayer  Book  :  but  to  make  them 
essential  parts  of  it,  would  be  manifestly  j)roductive  of  much 
inconvenience.  Any  printer  may,  at  his  discretion,  do  what 
was  solicited  on  this  subject,  although  he  may  not  notice 
the  Companion  to  the  Altar  in  the  table  of  contents  of  the 
Book  of  Conmion  Prayer. 

It  appears  from  the  journal,  that  the  convention  has 
endeavoured — and  with  propriety  as  is  here  conceived — to 
give  a  check  to  the  growing  practice  of  instituting  associated 

*  It  would  have  been  well,  had  the  sn)>jpct  recurred  so  as  to  be  brought  i)ef()ro 
ihn  convention  of  1811,  to  cause  notice  to  h;ive  been  given  on  the  journal  of  that 
vear.  But  the  fart  is  as  liero  related:  and  the  £;(.'iillcineu  roiiccrued  were  a  htlle 
pained,  by  the  misslateuienl  ou  the  nreccdin;:  journal ;  altiiougli  doulitlcss  orca- 
•^oned  by  misapprehension  or  by  inadvertence. 


Nuie  to  pa^c  ^\.  jt^jl 

rectorships.  They  destroy  responsibility,  and  o:ivc  occasion 
to  rivalshijis  between  pastors  of  tiie  same  parochial  church 
or  chiirciies.  It  is  argued  in  favour  of  Episcojwcv,  that 
independently  on  any  arguments  from  divine  institution  or 
from  apostolic  practice,  it  has  a  better  tendency  than  Pres- 
bytery to  peace  and  order.  The  last  argument  seems  to 
apply  with  more  weight  to  a  congregational,  than  even  to 
a  diocesan.  So  far  as  the  former  connexion,  in  other  de- 
nominations, has  been  known  in  any  considerable  degree 
to  the  writer  of  these  remarks,  it  has  been  generally  an 
illustration  of  the  opinion  here  expressed.  He  recollects 
reading  in  the  works  of  the  celebrated  Richard  Baxter, 
that  during  the  prostration  of  Episcopacy  in  England,  the 
pressing  instances  of  that  good  man — for  such  he  is  here 
conceived  to  have  been — for  the  increasing  of  the  number 
of  pastors  in  the  churches,  were  defeated  by  the  experience 
of  the  jealousies  constantly  occurring,  where  more  than  one 
pastor  was  settled  in  any  church.  This  is  in  a  work  called. 
The  Reformed  Pastor,  abridged  by  S.  Palmer,  part  ii' 
eiiap.  9. 

At  this  convention,  the  bishops  were  again  assailed  by 
the  troublesome  business  of  Ammi  Rogers;  who  affected 
to  bring  before  them  an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  Bishop 
Jarvis  and  the  clergy  of  Connecticut.     There  was  no  doubt 
on  the  minds  of  the  two  bishops  present,  that  there  had 
been  an  oversight  in  not  granting  to  this  man  a  trial,  in 
the  Church  in  that  state.     Bat  the  oversight,  if  they  were 
correct  in  supposing  one,  was  not  theirs ;    nor  was   it   in 
their  power  to  correct  it.     Nothing  could  have  been  easier, 
than  the  convicting  of  him  of  faults,  which  deserve  deo-ra- 
dation.     But  it  did  not  become  the  bishops  to  advise'^the 
recalling  of  the  act,  and  the  giving  of  him  a  trial.     There 
was  the  less  call  on  the  author  to  do  so,   because  he  had 
already    advised    this  very   measure,    as   did  also    Bishop 
Moore  ;  on  an  application  made  for  their  opinions  on  the 
subject,  by  the  standing  committee  of  the  Church  in  Con- 
necticut.    But  although  their  opinions  had  been  asked  and 
given,  there  occurred  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  seeking*- 
of  a  compliance  with  them.     The  bishops  had  no  conference 
with  Rogers ;    nor  would  they  have  noticed  his  business, 
had  he  not  employed  a  gentleman  of  reputation  in  the  law' 
to  whom  something  was  due  on  the  score  of  politeness  and 
respect.     They  spent  a  whole  morning  in  discussing  the 
matter  with  this  gentleman ;  but  persisted  in  declining  to 
faear  his  pleadings,  because  not  competent  to  decide.     The 


^U(>  Note  to  page  :]4. 

grounds  of  the  treatment  of  Ko<;ers,  by  tiie  House  of  Bi- 
wliops,  at  the  last  convention  and  at  tlic  present,  were 
accurately  recorded  ou  the  journaU'.  The  otlier  house 
j)roperly  refused  to  intermeddle ;  and  the  only  reason  of 
the  papers  being  sent  to  them  by  the  bishops,  was  their 
beitig  addressed  to  both- 

On  the  subject  of  the  Hymns  sanctioned  by  this  conven- 
tion, much  was  said,  as  well  out  of  doors  as  in  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  Some  members  of  that 
body,  had  contemplated  the  matter  previously  to  the  meet- 
ing, and  had  pressed  it  with  great  earnestness.  The  author 
of  these  ronarks  acknowledges,  that  it  was  with  pain  he 
saw  the  subject  brought  forward.  This  was  not  because 
he  doid)ted  either  of  the  lawfulness  of  celebrating  the  praises 
of  God  in  other  strains  than  those  of  David,  or  of  the  ex- 
pediency of  having  a  i'ew  well  selected  hymns  for  the  especial 
subjects  of  the  evangelical  economy;  which  can  no  other- 
wise be  celebrated  in  the  psalms,  than  in  an  accommodated 
sense.  Nevertheless,  there  is  so  little  of  good  poetry  except 
the  scriptural,  on  sacred  subjects ;  and  there  was  so  great 
danger  of  having  a  selection  accommodated  to  the  degree 
of  animal  sensibility,  alfected  by  those  who  were  the  most 
zealous  in  the  measure;  that  the  discretion  of  adopting  it 
seemed  questionable.  It  was,  however,  yielded  to  by  the 
bishops,  under  the  hope,  that  the  selection  of  a  few,  «nd 
those  unexceptionable,  although  some  of  them,  perhaps, 
are  not  to  be  extolled  for  the  excellence  either  of  the  senti- 
ments or  of  the  poetry,  might  prevent  the  unauthorized  use 
of  compositions  which  no  rational  Christian  can  ai)prove  of. 
The  matter,  however,  was  executed  with  too  much  haste. 
The  bishops  had  merely  time  to  give  a  cursory  reading  to 
the  hymns  proposed ;  the  result  of  which  was  the  acceptance 
of  them,  with  the  exception  of  one  hymn,  containing  a  verse 
that  seemed  a  little  enthusiastic.  In  lieu  of  this,  they  pro- 
posed another  hymn,  which  was  admitted.  They  who  were 
the  most  zealous  for  the  measure,  had  pressed  for  the  ad- 
mission of  about  two  hundred. 

On  the  subject  of  hymns,  there  is  ground  for  considerable 
apprehensions.  Some  ministers,  and  other  members  of 
this  Church,  have  so  strong  an  inclination  to  multiply  them, 
that,  whatever  might  be  in  future  the  number  of  those  al- 
lowed, there  would  be  at  every  convention  a  wish  for  more. 
Others,  are  aware  of  the  inconvenience  of  this  continual 
enlargement,  but  press  for  the  setting  aside  of  some  of  those 
selected,  in  order  to  introduce  new  ones  more  suited  to  their 


Nate  to  page  34.  201 

taste;  not  roresoelii^,  that  on  the  same  principle,  there  will 
he,  in  the  nc.vt  convention,  new  proposers  of  new  hymns, 
and  that  this  will  hapj)en  without  end.  There  are  some 
religious  societies,  who  think  it  ungodly  to  introduce  into 
the  worship  of  the  sanctuary,  any  other  singing  than  that 
of  the  Psalms  of  David.  This  is  unreasonable  :  but  are  we 
not  running  into  the  opposite  extreme? 

The  principles  which  prevail  in  tlie  estimation  of  the 
author,  and  which  he  proposes  under  subjection  to  the  say- 
ing— "  vaieant  quantum  possunt  valei'e" — that  is,  let  them 
pass  for  what  they  are  wortli — are  these. 

In  regard  to  the  general  subjects  of  psalmody,  as  the  at- 
tributes of  God,  the  mercies  of  creation  and  of  providence, 
and  what  comes  under  the  character  of  preceptive,  or  un- 
der that  of  devout  desire  and  pious  purpose,  he  knows  of  no 
other  compositions  which  have  proved  equally  interesting 
to  his  mind  ;  and  without  making  his  feelings  a  test  of  those 
of  other  persons,  he  cannot  forget,  that  these  compositions 
were  the  liturgy  of  the  .Jewish  Church,  when  its  devotions 
were  joined  in  by  the  divine  Author  of  our  religion.  It  is 
no  small  argument  in  favour  of  the  heavenly  origin  of  the 
Old  Testament,  that  strains  of  devotion,  so  far  excelling 
whatever  the  world  knows  of  prayer  practised  by  the  wisest 
men  among  the  heathen,  should  adorn  the  worship  of  a  peo- 
ple far  l)elow  some  other  nations  in  the  cultivation  of  the 
human  intellect.  It  should  be  added,  that  there  is  no  small 
proportion  of  the  psalms,  so  evidently  pointing  to  the  Mes- 
siah and  his  spiritual  kingdom,  as  only  to  require  acquaint- 
ance with  the  contents  of  the  "^qw  Testament,  in  order  to 
their  being  accommodated  to  the  celebration  of  the  mercies 
of  redemption. 

Nevertheless,  as  it  is  by  the  Gospel  that  "  life  and  im- 
mortality are  brought  to  light,"  there  would  seem  to  be  a 
suitableness  to  its  high  design,  in  celebrating  its  prominent 
subjects  in  definite  terms;  so  that  the  nativity,  the  cruci- 
fixion, the  resurrection,  the  ascension,  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost,  and  other  edifying  events, 
embodied  with  Christian  doctrine  and  essential  to  it,  may 
reasonably  be  rendered  the  more  impressive,  by  their 
being  carried  to  the  heart  on  the  wings  of  poetry  and  of 
music. 

It  is  not  intended  to  allege,  that  we  are  to  stop  here. 
But  there  is  no  hesitation  to  confess,  that  additions,  if  made, 
should  be  with  a  sparing  hand,  and  then  only  admitted, 
when  besides  sound  doctrine  and  weighty  sense,  the  compo- 

26 


2m  Xole  to  page  34', 

sition  l»o  siicli,  as  a  j)oet  of  acknowledged  genius  would  not- 
be  ashamed  to  own. 

As  to  the  loa<liii<^  of  our  book  with  the  same  truths  in  a 
diversity  of  language  and  of  metre,  or,  in  any  other  way, 
the  seeking  of  variety  for  its  own  sake,  there  is  pleasure  in- 
recording  the  opinion,  that  It  will  never  tend  to  the  sustain- 
ing either  of  truth  or  of  devotion.  When  devout  feelings 
have  often  accompanied  certain  words,  the  one  bring  the- 
other  along  with  them  by  the  law  of  association.  This- 
should  be  no  hinderance  to  as  much  variety  as  is  suited  to 
the  diversity  of  subject;  yet  it  discountenances  variety, 
admitted  for  the  gratification  of  restless  fancy.  As  to  that 
species  of  hymns,  which  aftects  to  clothe  devout  desire  in  the 
language  of  human  passion,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  we  shall 
continue  to  repel  every  effort  for  their  admission. 

One  effect  of  gratifying  the  passion  for  a  continued  addi- 
tion to  the  number  of  hymns,  and  for  expressing  the  same 
sentiments  in  a  variety  of  forms,  would  be  the  swelling  of 
the  Prayer  Book  to  an  immoderate  size.  Again,  the  pro- 
bable eft'ect  of  this,  would  be  the  sometimes  editing  of  the 
book  without  either  hymns  or  metre  psalms  under  the  same 
cover;  as  may  be  done  at  any  time  without  oflence  against 
any  existing  regulation;  since  they  are  no  parts  of  the  said 
book,  but  make  a  book  by  themselves.  Accordingly,  selec- 
tions from  it  may  be  made  by  any  parochial  minister,  at  his 
discretion;  and  either  be  bound  with  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  or  kept  in  a  separate  manual  for  the  use  of  his  con- 
gregation, and  of  others  to  whom  it  may  be  eligible.  Some- 
thing like  the  latter,  the  author  has  seen  in  sundry  churches 
in  England  ;  in  which  all  the  metrical  compositions  in  use,aro 
on  a  large  sheet  of  pasteboard,  and  kept  hanging  in  the  pews. 

It  may  be  proper,  to  guard  the  above  from  being  so  mis- 
construed, as  to  be  a  sanction  for  the  publishing  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  with  the  omission  of  any  jjortion  of  it, 
properly  coming  under  any  head  of  the  tal)le  of  contents. 
This  was  done  in  a  former  day,  by  an  omission  of  the  book 
of  Psalms,  and  an  insertion  of  the  selections  only:  which 
unauthorized  act,  being  made  known  to  the  convention  of 
1801,  produced  the  canon  now  numbered  as  the  forty-third^ 
"  Prescribing  the  Mode  of  publishing  authorized  Editions  of 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  <fcc."  But  "  The  Articles  of 
Religion,"  and  "  The  Ordinal,"  are  each  of  them  a  distinct 
book,  although  resting  on  the  same  authority ;  so  that  "  The 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  with  or  without  them,  may  be 
complete. 


jSule  to  page  34.  203 

The  subject  of  hymns  has  so  evidcntlj  a  beariti!,'  on  that 
^of  the  psalms,  that  it  will  not  be  irrelevant,  anil  will  be  jus- 
tilied  by  the  liberty  which  the  author  stipulated  for  in  the 
preface,  to  give  the  outlines  of  his  theory  concerning  the 
latter.  It  has  produced  some  variety  of  opinion,  although 
not  in  any  such  extent,  as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  our 
churches. 

[n  the  primitive  Church,  says  the  learned  Bingham,  "the 
joining  of  all  the  worshippers  in  the  psalmody,  was  the  most 
ancient  and  general  practice,  till  the  way  of  alternatti 
psalmody  was  brought  into  the  Church."  May  every  at- 
tempt to  supercede  the  former,  by  an  exclusive  method, 
prove  abortive. 

Is  there,  then,  to  be  interdicted  an  higher  grade  of  mu- 
sical performance,  calling  for  acquirements  of  more  study, 
and  confined  to  the  select  members  of  a  choir?  Far  from 
us  be  the  opinion,  that  there  should  be  wanting  any  matter 
which  can  help  to  swell  the  notes  of  Christian  praise;  and, 
that  all  improvement  in  this  line  should  be  surrendered  to 
mere  amusement  and  to  licentiousness:  but,  let  it  be  admit- 
ted on  the  indispensable  condition,  of  subserviency  to  the 
worship  of  him,  who  «o  framed  the  ear  as  to  be  delighted 
i)y  melody  and  by  harmony  ;  and  especially,  rather  than  the 
permission  of  a  contrariety  to  that  end  in  sounds  character- 
ized by  levity,  let  it  be  kept  at  a  distance  from  the  sacred 
enclosure  of  the  house  of  God.  The  same  reason  applies 
to  the  aid  of  instrnments.  They  may  contribute  to  the  ef- 
fect of  sentiment  and  of  voice  ;  but  when  there  are  emitted 
from  them  sounds  hostile  to  every  devout  desire,  there  is  no 
person  impressed  by  a  serious  sense  of  the  duties  of  the 
place,  who  would  not  rather  see  them  committed  to  the 
Hames. 

It  is  stated  by  Bishop  Lowth,  in  his  dissertation  prefixed 
to  his  translation  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  that  the  book 
of  Psalms  was  originally  in  metre.  He  considers  the  fact 
as  proved  by  certain  parts  of  them,  in  which  there  are 
alphabetical  marks  of  the  beginnings  of  lines  and  of  stanzas. 
To  the  same  purpose  Josephus  atiirms,  that  David  wrote 
his  psalms  in  trimeters  and  pentameters. 

This  metre  was  not  of  the  same  number  of  syllables,  as 
among  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins;  but,  to  use  the  words  of 
the  bishop,  "  that  relation  and  proportion  of  one  verse  to 
another,  which  arises  from  the  correspondence  of  terms, 
and  from  the  form  of  construction;  from  whence  results  a 
rythmus  of  propositions,  and  a  harmony  of  sentences." 


204  Note  Lu  yugc  34. 

The  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  language  had  become 
lost,  long  before  the  age  of  tiie  Gospel  ;  principally  in  con- 
sequence of  its  want  of  vowels;  so  that  the  subsequent  in- 
vention of  vowels  by  the  3Iasorets,  has  never  recovered  the 
pronunciation  with  certainty.  Hence,  the  original  metre 
is  unknown  :  and  even  in  the  age  of  the  Gospel,  the  worship 
of  the  temple  was  with  the  psalms  in  the  prosaic  form. 

The  chanting  of  them  in  this  form,  will  for  ever  claim 
the  merit  of  their  having  been  so  sung,  in  the  worship 
attended  on  by  our  blessed  Saviour  and  his  apostles;  and 
of  their  having  continued  to  be  so  sung  in  the  primitive 
Church,  and  afterwards  universally  until  the  reformation. 
In  the  compiling  of  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
no  metrical  singing  was  contemplated:  so  that  when  Stern- 
hold  and  Hopkins  made  their  version,  it  came  in  silently, 
under  the  general  license  to  sing  any  portion  of  scripture. 
To  this  day  in  England,  it  is  only  un(ier  the  cover  of  the 
said  permission,  that  either  the  said  version,  or  the  more 
poetic  version  of  Tate  and  Brady  shelters  itself.  In  the 
American  Church,  the  latter  is  expressly  sanctioned. 

How  can  the  sanction  be  reasonably  censured,  as  treating 
the  words  of  scripture  irreverently  ?  For  the  singing  of 
the  psalms  in  the  original,  none  contend  :  and  as  for  the 
original  measure,  the  recovery  of  it  is  given  up  as  desperate. 
To  render  them  intelligible  in  any  modern  language,  it  is 
necessary  to  accommodate  in  a  considerable  degree  to  the 
genius  of  it.  If  the  accommodation  be  a  little  extended  for 
the  making  of  poetic  measure,  it  cannot  be  unlawful  in  its 
principle,  provided  the  sense  be  faithfully  preserved.  The 
same  license  is  often  taken  in  choral  music ;  it  being  common 
to  make  transpositions  and  other  alterations  of  the  words 
of  anthems,  although  not  for  the  purpose  of  tying  them  to 
metre. 

But  the  license  pleaded  for  is  denounced,  as  a  gratifying 
of  sense;  and  there  is  an  op[)robrium  at  hand,  in  the  ex- 
pression of  a  tickling  of  the  ear.  W  hat  is  the  use  of  any 
poetry,  or  of  any  music,  but  that  through  the  inlets  of  the 
gratified  senses,  there  may  be  an  excitement  of  devout 
affections  ?  Were  it  not  for  this  advantage,  it  were  better, 
that  divine  truths  should  be  always  uttered,  in  the  plainness 
of  a  dress  suited  to  mathematics  or  to  metaphysics. 

It  has  been  remarked,  that  in  England,  metrical  psalmody 
has  been  instrumental  to  schism,  having  been  always  the 
most  esteemed  by  the  dissenters  from  the  established 
Church.     It  is  dillicult  to  perceive  cither  the  relation  of 


I:-' 


Nolc  to  page  34.  205 

the  subjects,  or  the  evidence  of  the  position.  In  rcgnrtl  to 
the  latter  it  is  notorious,  that  metrical  singing  nmde  its 
way  not  only  to  the  parisli  churches,  but  to  the  catliedrals, 
without  the  sanction  of  command,  or  even  of  especial  j)er- 
mission  ;  and  that  it  retains  its  stand  in  them,  under  a 
provision  which  had  it  not  in  contemplation.  If  the  dis- 
senters have  not  manifested  the  same  regard  for  an  higher 
grade  of  singing,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  at  their 
origin,  there  was  an  ideal  association  of  this  v*'ith  other 
matters;  that  it  has  been  hereditary;  and  that  we  know 
not  how  far  this  may  have  been  the  result  of  another  asso- 
ciation— meaning  of  the  subject  with  the  supposed  attribute 
of  levity :  for  which  too  much  cause  has  been  given  in  faulty 
performance. 

As  to  the  churches  of  the  establishment,  it  is  probable  that 
there  is  not  one  of  them  in  which  metrical  singing  is  not 
practised;  although  any  parochial  clergyman  might  banish 
it,  without  offence  against  any  institution  of  his  Church. 

The  gratifying  of  pojjular  taste  by  the  use  of  metre,  has 
been  urged  to  its  disgrace.  Now  to  sacrifice  truth  to  the 
opinion  of  the  high  or  of  the  low,  irmst  be  grievous  sin. 
But  on  a  question  of  taste,  if  that  of  the  people  can  be  laid 
hold  on  for  the  increase  of  their  piety,  it  would  be  difficult 
to  prove  this  an  error:  as  much  so,  as  to  do  the  like  in 
reference  to  the  improvemeni  of  a  talent  for  elocution,  with 
the  hope  of  rendering  it  instrumental  to  popular  edification. 

After  all,  it  must  be  acknowledged  of  our  metre,  requiring 
as  it  does  lines  answering  to  one  another  in  the  numbers  of 
their  syllables,  that  it  is  very  unequal  to  the  force  of  what 
must  have  been  accomplished  by  Hebrew  verse,  as  described 
by  Bishoji  Lowth;  according  to  which,  each  line  contained 
a  complete  sense.  He  calls  the  lines  parallelisms:  and  he 
distinguishes  them  into — the  synonymous,  the  antithetic, 
and  the  synthetic  or  consecutive.  These  names  are  de- 
scriptive of  the  diversity;  and  the  examjjles  given  by  him 
are  proof,  how  exceedingly  all  our  translations  in  metre 
fall  short  of  those  poems  in  their  original  forms.* 

*  In  order  to  illustrate  the  sense  of  tlie  bishop  concerning  piirallelisms,   the 
following  examples  are  given  from  among  those  exhibited  by  him  : — 

The  Svnonymous. 
"  Bow  thy  heavens,  O  Jehovali,  and  descend ; 
Toucii  the  mountains,  and  they  shall  smoke: 
Dart  forth  lightning,  and  scatter  them  ; 
Shoot  out  thine  arrows,  and  destroy  tiieni." 

Psalm  cxliv.  5,  6. 


^^OQ  Note  iu  jjat-e  34. 

As  to  wluit  is  coniinonly  called  rhyme,  in  which  the  hues 
answer  to  one  anotlier,  not  only  in  the  number  of  syllables, 
but  in  sound  or  jingle  ;  if,  as  is  alleged,  there  is  something 
in  the  genius  of  the  English  language,  rendering  such  an 
artificial  construction  pecidiarly  agreeable ;  it  is  difficult  to 
<levise  any  principle  on  which  it  should  be  interdicted.  And 
yet,  the  opinion  here  entertained  is,  that  the  most  to  be 
claimed  for  it  is  endurance,  until  there  shall  be  exhibited  a 
translation  stript  of  it,  and  in  other  respects  worthy  of 
adoption.  Certainly,  there  are  psalms  which  have  never 
been  put  into  this  chain,  nor  perhajis  into  that  of  syllabic 
measure,  without  material  deterioration. 

In  regard  both  to  metre  and  to  rhyme  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, that  sometimes  by  the  throwing  in  of  a  superfluous 
word,  to  suit  that  species  of  translation,  there  is  caused  u 
considerable  departure  from  the  original.  Besides,  there 
is  commonly  a  suspending  of  the  sense  of  one  line  on  what 
is  to  follow  in  another :  which  is  contrary  to  the  example 
of  Hebrew  verse.*     In  addition  to  all  this,  it  is  often  neces- 

The  Antithetic. 

"  They  are  bowed  down,  and  fallen ; 
But  we  are  risen,  and  maintain  ourselves  firm." 

I'sabn  XX.  8. 

"  For  his  wrath  is  but  for  a  inoiiient,  his  favour  for  life; 

Sorrow  may  lodye  for  tJie  cvcninsr,  but  in  the  morning  gladness." 

Psalm  XXX.  5. 

The  Antithesis  is  in  each  of  the  lines.  Sometimes  it  comprehends  a  couplet, 
each  line  having  a  complete  sense. 

The  Synthetic,  ok  Consecutive. 

"  Whatsoever  Jehovah  pleaseth, 

That  doeth  he  in  the  heavens  and  in  the  earth; 

In  the  sea  and  in  all  the  deeps : 

Causing  the  vapours  to  ascend  from  the  ends  of  tlie  earth; 

Making  the  light'nings  with  the  rain  ; 

Bringing  forth  the  wind  out  of  his  treasures." 

Psalm  cxxxv.  6,  7. 

"  The  differenco  may  be  illnstrated,  by  the  following  lines  from  the  fourth 
psalm.  In  the  first  line,  the  sense  is  suspended  for  the  second:  and  in  the  third, 
the  same  is  done,  in  a  dependence  on  the  fourth,  a  disadvantage  sometimes 
aggravated  by  an  absurd  flourisiion  the  organ.  But  in  the  other  four  lines,  what 
the  bishop  calls  a  consecutive  parallelism  is  complete,  and  remarkably  beautiful. 

"  3.  Consider  that  the  righteous  man 

Is  (xod's  pe<uiliar  choice, 

And  when  to  him  1  make  my  prayer, 

lie  always  hears  my  voice." 
"  4.  Then  stand  in  awe  of  his  commands, 

Floe  every  thing  that's  ill : 

Commune  in  private  with  your  hearts. 

And  bend  them  to  his  will.'' 


Note  1o  page  34.  207 

sary  to  take  in  so  much  of  what  has  been  sufrgestod  by  the 
brain  of  the  modern  poet,  as  that  the  sentiment  of  inspira- 
tion is  diluted  in  the  exuberance  of  lan<juage,  and  sustains 
a  material  dimunition  of  its  stren^^th.* 

There  arises  the  question — What  is  the  line  of  conduct 
to  be  pursued  in  this  Church,  in  consideration  of  the  pre- 
mises? The  answer  is,  fir&t,  in  reg'ard  to  chants,  if  there 
be  any  who  have  a  disreHsh  for  them,  let  such  persons  be 
aware  of  the  liii^li  sanction  umler  which  they  have  come 
down  to  us;  and  on  that  account,  let  them  not  dare  to  make 
an  effort  for  the  excluding  of  them.t     Secondlv,  in  regard 


*  The  two  following  examples  are  given  from  a  comparison  of  the  Bible  trans- 
lation with  that  of  the  book  in  metre.  The  lines  of  the  latter  are  fine,  which 
make  them  serve  the  better  for  instances  of  the  extending  of  a  sentiment  over  too 
large  a  surface. 

The  coinjwrisons  to  be  made  are  not  intended  in  disparagement  of  the  version 
of  Tate  and  Brady  :  for  whether  on  acconnt  of  its  merits,  or  from  the  influence  of 
the  recollection  of  sejisibilities,  extending  as  Cm-  back  as  any  recollections  extend, 
there  is  a  preference  of  it  to  every  other  of  the  kind.  The  imperfections  charged 
on  it,  is  common  to  all  the  metrical  transJatioas. 

Bible  Translation.     PsoZj/i  cxrv.  1,  2. 
"  When  Israel  went  out  of  Egypt,  the  house  of  Jacob  from  a  people  of  strange 
language ;  Judah  was  his  sanctuary,  and  Israel  his  dominion." 

Book  in  Metre. 

"  When  Israel,  by  the  Almighty  led, 
Enrich'd  with  their  oppressor's  spoil. 
From  Egypt  march'd,  and  Jacob's  seed 
From  bondage  in  a  foreign  soil; 
Jehovah,  for  his  residence. 
Chose  out  imperial  Judah's  tent. 
His  mansion  royal,  and  from  thence, 
Through  Israel's  camp  his  orders  sent." 

Bible  Translation.     Psa/m  cxxxvii.  1. 

"  By  the  rivers  of  Babylon,  there  we  sat  down,  yea,  we  wept,  when  we 
jeniembered  Zion." 

Book  in  Metre. 

"  When  we  our  weary  limbs  to  rest. 
Sat  down  by  prond  Euphrates'  stream. 
We  wept,  with  doleful  thoughts  o[)prest. 
And  Siou was  our  mournful  theme." 

The  whole  of  these  two  psalms  are  an  illustration  to  the  purpose. 

t  There  is  an  advantage  incidental  to  chants,  and  worthv  of  notice :  it  is  the 
exclusion  of  light  airs,  which,  tacked  to  the  plain  words  of  scripture,  would  b« 
offensive,  not  to  say  to  every  pious,  bnt  to  every  decent  person.  There  are  some 
religious  people — it  is  surprising — ^who  would  introduce  into  metre  psalmody,  the 
fashionable  tunes  of  festivity  and  sport.  The  reason  offered  is — why  should  tho 
best  tunes  be  exclusively  the  property  of  Satan?  The  author  is  not  prepared  to 
pass  such  a  judgment  on  those  tunes,  which  are  not  sinful,  so  long  as  they  are 
used  within  the  bounds  of  innocency.  But  if  they  be  indeed  the  property  of  the 
aforesaid  personage,  let  us  be  just  even  to  him.  and  permit  him  to  keep  his  own; 
Rational  and  evangelical  devotion  has  no  occasion  for  them,  however  suited  they 
may  be  to  the  extravagances  of  enthusiasm. 


208  Note  f.o  pai;c  34:. 

to  psalms  in  metre,  rendered  by  habit  dear  to  many  devout 
iiiiiids  ;  and  there  being  in  the  use  of  them,  a  readiness  to 
the  desirable  object  of" a  general  joining  of  the  people;  let 
not  the  taste  for  a  species  of  singing  which  requires  more  of 
science,  invade  the  ground  on  which  they  stand.  And, 
thirdly,  let  not  that  high  grade  of  choral  praise  be  nndistin- 
guishingly  rejected  by  those  who  have  no  fancy  for  it. 
Kather  let  it  be  encouraged  with  moderation,  under  the 
condition  rigorously  required,  not  only  of  there  being 
nothing  of  levity,  but  of  there  being  a  tendency  to  the  ex- 
citement of  devout  affections.  And  let  the  advocates  of  it 
1)0  aware  of  the  disgust,  which  will  and  ought  to  be  excited 
by  a  violation  of  this  condition,  and  of  the  dissatisfaction 
whicii  will  be  the  reasonable  result  even  of  a  defect  of  skill 
in  the  performance. 

It  is  probable  that  the  chants,  the  metre  psalms,  and  the 
choral  anthems,  might  all  be  jjrofitably  laid  aside,  in  the 
event  of  an  approach  in  the  English  language,  to  Hebrew 
verse,  as  above  described  by  Bishop  Lowth,  and  of  which  he^ 
says  in  another  part  of  his  dissertation,  that  the  harmony 
of  it  arose  "  from  accents,  tones,  and  musical  modulations." 
Jiut  the  bisliop  evidently  considered  this  as  unattainable 
even  in  the  Hebrew. 

On  a  retrospect  of  the  transactions  of  this  convention, 
there  is  entertained  the  trust,  that  it  did  not  end  without  a 
general  tendency  to  consolidate  the  communion;  although, 
rn  the  course  of  the  business,  there  had  been  displayed 
more  than  in  any  other  convention,  the  influence  of  some 
notions  leading  far  wide  of  that  rational  devotion,  which 
this  Church  has  inherited  from  the  Church  of  England. 
The  spirit  here  complained  of,  was  rather  moderated  than 
raised  higher  during  the  session.  Kut  it  being  liable  to  be 
combined  with  schemes  of  personal  consequence  ;  there  is 
no  foreseeing  to  what  lengths  it  may  extend  in  future.  On 
the  part  of  those  inimical  to  the  contemplated  evil,  the 
proper  preservative — and  may  God  grant  that  it  may  be 
applied — is  the  cultivating  of  an  enlightened  zeal  in  favour 
of  the  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion,  as  revealed  in  scripture, 
and   hitherto  maintained  in  their  integrity  by  this  Church.* 

*  Lest  what  is  said  concerning  schemes  of  personal  consequence  should  hear 
the  appearance  of  an  insinuation  not  to  be  sustained  by  any  fact,  the  author  finds 
himself  called  on  to  specify  an  attempt  made  to  congregate  some  select  clergymen 
in  Baltimore,  at  tlie  time  of  the  General  Convention,  as  a  distinct  body,  and  for 
the  greater  increase  of  piety.  The  tendency  of  such  a  scheme  must  be  obviouF. 
Almost  all  of  the  invited  clergymen  saw  the  matter  in  a  proper  point  of  view,  and 
declined  the  invitation.     The  consequence  was,  tliat  the  project  came  to  nothing. 


Note  to  jHi^c  36.  ^^ 


Q.  Page  36.     Of  the  Convention  in  1811. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Wilkins  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties. The  secretaries  of  the  two  houses,  were  the  Rev. 
Philo  Shelton,  of  the  former,  and  the  Rev.  Ashbel  Baldv/in, 
of  the  latter.  Bishop  Claggett,  who  was  to  have  opened 
this  convention  v.'ith  a  sermon,  being  detained  by  sickness, 
that  office  was  performed  by  the  presiding  bishop. 

This  convention  was  held  under  very  serious  and  well 
founded  apprehensions,  that  the  American  Church  would 
be  again  subjected  to  the  necessity  of  having  recourse  to 
the  mother  Church,  for  the  Episcopacy  ;  or  else  of  continu- 
ing it  without  requiring  the  canonical  number  ;  which  might 
be°  productive  of  great  disorder  in  future.  Bishop  Moore 
had  been  lately  visited  by  a  paralytic  stroke,  and  was  sup- 
posed to  be  incompetent  to  the  joining  in  a  consecration, 
unless  in  his  chamber  r  v^hich  was  contemplated  as  the  last 
resort.  Bishop  Claggett,  after  severe  indisposition,  was 
so  far  recovered  as  to  be  encouraged  to  attempt  the  journey ; 
but  after  proceeding  a  few  miles,  found  himself  under  the 
necessity  of  returnmg.  Bishop  Madison  thought  himself 
not  at  liberty  to  leave  the  duties  of  his  college.*  The 
author  left  home,  under  the  hope  of  inducing  Bishop  Pro- 
voost  to  go  on  to  New-Haven  ;  although  he  had  never  per-^ 
formed  any  ecclesiastical  duty,  since  the  consecration  of 
Bishop  Moore,  in  1801.  But  besides  Bishop  Provoost's 
being  under  the  effects  of  a  slight  stroke  of  the  paralytic, 
sustained  two  years  before,  he  was,  at  this  time,  only  be- 
o-innin<r  to  recover  from  the  jaundice.  He  found  himself 
utterly^  incompetent  to  the  taking  of  a  journey ;  but  pre- 
mised, if  possible,  to  assist  in  a  consecration,  if  it  should  be 
held  in  the  city  of  New-York.  With  the  expectation  of 
this.  Bishop  Jarvis,  after  the  rising  of  the  convention,  came 
with  the  author  to  the  said  city ;  as  did  the  two  bishops 
elect.  To  the  last  hour,  there  was  danger  of  disappoint- 
ment. On  our  arrival,  a  day  also  having  been  publicly 
notified  for  the  consecration,  we  found  that  Bishop  Provoost 
had  suffered  a  relapse  during  our  absence.  But  finally,  he 
found  himself  strong  enough  to  give  his  attendance ;  and 
thus,  the  business  was  happily  accomplished. 

*  It  appears  from  a  letter  of  Bishop  Madison  to  the  author,  that    these  duties 
had  been  made  the  more  imperative  by  the  solemnity  of  au  oath. 

27 


210  Note  to  page  3G. 

What  is  mentioned  on  the  journals,  in  relation  to  the- 
introduction  of  Episcopacy  into  the  western  states,  arose 
from  a  correspondence  which  had  been  entered  into  be- 
tween the  author  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  Doddridge,  who  had 
been  ordained  by  hitn  many  years  before;  and  who  lived 
near  the  western  line  of  Pennsylvania,  which  divides  it 
from  Virginia.  This  gentleman  wrote  in  behalf  of  himself, 
and  of  a  few  other  clergymen  settled  in  those  western 
regions.  The  line  of  direction  given  to  this  business  by 
the  convention,  renders  it  premature  to  say  much  concern- 
ing it  at  present.  The  hinderances  to  the  carrying  of  the 
design  of  the  preceding  General  Convention  into  eflect, 
were  the  difficulty  of  selecting  a  suitable  person,  and  that 
of  supporting  him.  The  same  difficulties  are  to  be  appre- 
hended in  the  new  shape  of  the  business.  There  is  this 
difference  in  the  two  designs.  According  to  the  former, 
the  bishop  would  have  been  on  the  missionary  plan,  selected 
and  paid  on  this  side  of  the  mountains.  If  the  latter  idea 
should  be  realized,  the  churches  to  the  westward  must  be 
organized,  and  a  bishop  must  be  chosen  by  themselves. 

It  appears  on  the  journal,  that  the  convention  were  called 
on  to  give  their  sanction  to  the  endeavours  of  the  Episco- 
palians in  Connecticut,  for  the  establishment  of  an  Episco- 
pal academy  with  corporate  powers.  This  design  originated 
in  the  exclus-ive  constitution  of  the  college  in  that  state, 
which  is  entirely  in  the  hands  of  Congregationalists;  and 
is  so  patronized  by  the  government,  and  so  supplied  with 
occasional  grants  of  money  from  the  treasury,  as  is  thought 
to  amount  to  a  species  of  state  establishment  of  a  particular 
religious  denomination.  It  is  considerably  owing  to  this 
circumstance,  that  there  is  a  degree  of  dissatisfaction  be- 
tween the  Episcopalians  and  the  dominant  society,  beyond 
what  prevails  in  any  other  state  in  the  union. 

The  application  to  the  society  (in  England)  for  the  Pro- 
pagating of  the  Gospel,  originated  in  the  following  circum- 
stances. Before  the  revolution,  and  when  the  state  now 
known  by  the  name  of  Vermont,  was  considered  as  part  of 
the  province  of  New-Hampshire,  Governor  Wentworth,  in 
his  grants  of  the  western  lands  of  that  province,  laid  out  in 
every  township  a  tract  for  the  use  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
which  should  in  future  be  within  the  limits  of  the  township; 
and  conveyed  the  lands  so  given  to  the  said  society.  Some 
of  these  lands  are  within  the  present  bounds  of  New-Hamp- 
shire, and  the  rest  are  in  Vermont.  After  the  peace  of 
1783,  the  society  conveyed  the  former  to  certain  gentlemen. 


Note  to  page  36.  21 1 

within  the  state  to  which  they  belonged.  The  present  ap- 
pHcution,  for  a  similar  grant  of  the  lands  in  Vermont,  was 
with  the  view  of  making  them  productive,  for  the  acconi- 
jdishing  of  the  original  ol)ject  of  the  grants. 

It  appears  further  on  the  journal,  that  two  Rev.  gentle- 
men, Benjamin  lionham,  and  Virgil  H.  liarber,  made  to 
the  convention  an  application,  the  purport  of  which  is  not 
recorded,  but  became  an  object  of  attention  in  conversation, 
during  and  after  the  session,  besides  its  occasioning  of  a 
debate  at  the  time,  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties. The  subject  is  contemplated  as  likely  to  be  a  cause 
of  future  litigation,  and  therefore  now  noticed  with  sorrow. 
The  object  of  the  two  gentlemen  alluded  to,  was  to  procure 
a  declaration  of  the  invalidity  of  lay-baptism;  and  they 
were  said  to  be  conscientiously  scrupulous  of  admitting  as 
members  of  their  congregations,  persons  who  had  received 
no  other.*  This  of  coarse  precluded  accessions,  except  on 
the  condition  of  compliance  with  their  proposal,  from  the 
most  numerous  denomination  in  the  state:  their  baptism 
by  the  Congregational  ministers,  being  considered  as  per- 
formed by  laymen.  Although  the  clergymen  referred  to 
were  singular  in  carrying  the  matter  so  far ;  yet  there  has 
been  an  increasing  tendency  in  some  of  the  clergy,  to  ad- 
minister Episcopal  baptism  to  such  as  desire  it,  on  alleged 
doubts  of  the  validity  of  former  baptism.  Even  this  is  con- 
trary to  the  rubrics,  as  is  proved  by  many  judicious  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England.  It  happened,  that  a  distin- 
guished lay-member  of  the  convention — the  Hon.  Rufus 
King — had  brought  with  him  a  pamphlet  lately  sent  to  him 
from  England,  containing  a  judgment  recently  given  in  an 
ecclesiastical  court  of  that  country,  in  a  case  precisely  to  the 
point.  It  was  occasioned  by  a  suit  brought  by  a  dissenter 
against  a  parish  minister  for  refusing  to  bury  a  child  who 
had  been  baptized  by  a  minister  dissenting  from  the  estab- 
lishment. The  judge — Sir  John  Nichols — decided  it  against 
the  clergyman.  His  reasons,  grounded  altogether  on  the 
rubrics,  must  carry  conviction  to  every  mind,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  question  of  the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England. 
It  is  true,  that  this  does  not  settle  the  question  of  the  sense 
of  scripture.  On  the  most  serious  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject many   years  ago,   conviction  is  entertained,  that  the 

*  One  of  the  two  clergymen  (IMr.  Barber)  distinguishing  themselves  as  above, 
a  few  years  after,  became  a  Roman  Catholic.  In  the  communion  thus  joined  by 
him,  it  is  not  uncommon  for  midvvives  to  baptize.  It  is  a  well  known  propertjr 
of  extremes,  that  they  are  often  seen  making  the  connecting  points  of  a  circle. 


212  Note  to  page 'SQ. 

holy  scriptures  and  the  Church  are  not  at  variance  in  this 
matter.  What  adds  to  the  sorrow  felt,  at  the  introduction 
of  a  new  ground  of  difference  in  the  American  Church,  is 
the  observing,  that  it  never  existed  in  the  mother  Church, 
until  about  the  year  1712;  and  that  it  had  then  the  strongest 
appearances  of  a  political  manoeuvre,  played  off  against  the 
family  on  whom  the  succession  to  the  crown  had  been  settled 
by  act  of  parhament.* 

If  the  prejudice  should  prevail,  it  is  very  unfortunate  that 
two  of  our  bishops  (Dr.  Provoostt  and  Dr.  Jarvis)  never 
received  baptism  from  an  Episcopalian  administrator.     So 
that  who  knows  what  scruples  this  may  occasion,  as  to  the 
validity  of  many  of  our  ordinations,  and  among  the  number, 
those  of  the  very  two  gentlemen,  who  made  the  stir  at  the 
late  convention?     It  is  true,  that  to  meet  this  difliculty,  the 
distinction  is  devised,  of  the  possibility  of  transmitting  the 
Episcopal  succession  through  persons  who  are  not  members 
of  the  Christian  Church.     This  was  the  sense  of  Mr.  Law- 
rence, who  wrote  with  much  zeal  on  the  subject,  about  the 
time  above  referred  to.     But  Dr.  Hickes,  who  corresponded 
with  Mr.  Lawrence   relatively  to  the   nuiin  question,  and 
harmonized  with  him  in  it,  disagreed  with  him  on  the  sub- 
ordinate point  of  a  man's  being  a  bishop,  without  being  a 
Christian.     Dr.  Hickes  is  high  in  the  esteem  of  all  the  gen- 
tlemen who  incline  to  the  opinion  of  the  invalidity  of  lay 
baptism.     Therefore,  who  can  tell  to  what  extent  his  senti- 
ment may  prevail,  and  what  inconveniences  it  may  occasion  ? 
There  would  be  no  certainty  of  the  existence  of  a  bishop 
in  Christendom. 

In  England,  the  scruple  arose  in  the  latter  end  of  the 
reign  of  Q,ueen  Anne,  when  there  opened  the  prospect  of 
introducing  the  Pretender.  It  was  a  political  measure  to 
serve  that  cause,  and  fell  with  it.  A  reproach  was  thrown 
on  the  electoral  family,  that  they  were  unbaptizod  Luthe- 
rans: as  is  noticed  in  Tindal's  continuation  of  Kapin — (p. 
725,  of  vol.  iii.  of  the  continuation  the  first.) 


*  .Tainrs  the  First,  when  he  ascoiulpd  tlio  throne  of  Fngland,  and  prohably  his 
Eon  Charles  the  First,  who  succeeded  him,  iiad  lieen  l)aptizcd  in  Scotland  by  non- 
episcopahan  ministers.  And  at  the  restoration  of  Cliarles  the  Second,  when  tho 
j^reat  mass  of  persons  who  liad  grrovvn  up  dnrinjr  the  troubles,  had  been  iion- 
episcopally  baptized  ;  it  does  not  appear,  tiiat  :iny  motion  was  made  to  rebaptize 
them.  Tliis  confirms  the  sentinn  lit.  tb;it  wlien  liie  doctrine  was  broached  in  the 
reign  of  Queen  Anne,  it  was  in  liostility  to  the  Hanoverian  family. 

t  Bishop  Provoost  was  of  an  Episcopalian  family,  but  from  .some  local  or  acci- 
dental cause,  was  baptized  by  a  minister  of  the  low  Dutch  Ch.urch.  Bishop 
Jarvis  had  been  born  and  educated  among  the  Congregationali.-ts. 


Note  to  page  ZQ.  213 

In  confirmation  of  the  preceding  statement,  there  shall 
be  given  in  a  note  an  extract  from  a  charge  of  Archdeacon 
Sharp  to  the  clergy  of  his  archdeaconry.  His  book  is  a 
body  of  charges  delivered  by  him  on  the  rubrics  and  the 
canons.  He  gives  an  account  of  a  meeting  held  at  Lambeth, 
of  the  two  archbishops,  and  all  the  bishops  who  were  in  town. 
The  year  in  which  their  conference  was  held — 1712 — shows 
the  coincidence  of  the  occasion  with  the  existing  state  of 
politics.  The  assembled  prelates  deterriiined  unanimously 
in  contrariety  to  the  scruple,  which  the  artifice  had  excited. 

As  Mr.  Lawrence's  well  known  book  on  lay-baptism  was 
issued  about  the  same  time,  it  was  probably  in  aid  of  the 
political  design.  For  Dr.  Sharp's  account  of  the  matter, 
see  the  note.* 

There  being  notice  on  the  journals  of  the  rejection  of  a 
request  of  a  clergyman  in  Connecticut,  and  no  reason  given, 
it  comes  within  the  design  of  these  statements  to  record 
the  case. 

The  book  is  well  esteemed  ;  and  it  was  not  from  dissatis- 
faction with  it,  that  the  application  was  rejected;  but  be- 
cause the  rerpiest  to  enjoin  the  use  of  the  chants  and  tunes 
exclusively  of  all  others,  was  thought  unreasonable.  The 
expectation  of  the  ajiplicant  has  been  misunderstood  by 
some;  who  have  supposed,  that  he  included  in  his  demand 
the  prohibition  of  the  singing  of  psalms  in  metre.  It  is 
true,  that  he  disapproves  of  such  singing,  from  the  opinion 


*  "  In  that  year  (1732)  the  dispute  about  the  invalidity  of  lay-baplism  running 
pretty  high,  the  two  archbishops,  with  all  the  bishops  of  their  provinces  that  were 
in  town,  came  unanimously  to  this  reso!ntio!i — that  lay-baptism  should  be  dis- 
couraged as  much  as  possible :  hut.  if  the  essentials  fuid  been  preserved  in  a  baptism 
by  a  lay  hand,  ii  vas  not  to  be  repeated.  But  then,  when  it  was  proposed  that  a 
declaration  of  their  sentiments  to  this  purpose  should  be  published,  in  order  to 
silence  or  determine  the  debates  raised  on  this  question,  it  was  resolved  upon 
mature  dcliberatioli,  to  li^avf  the  question  as  mnch  utiderided  by  any  public 
declaration,  as  it  was  left  in  the  public  offices  and  canons  of  the  Church,  for  the 
better  security  of  discipline,  and  to  prevent  any  advantages  that  n  ight  be  taken 
by  dissenters,  or  seem  to  be  given  them,  in  favour  of  their  baptisms;  thougli  they 
do  not  properly  come  within  the  question  of  lay-baptisms  in  cases  of  extremity." 

Ur.  Sharp  professes  to  have  taken  the  above  from  the  original  papers  signed 
by  the  two  archbishops. 

The  matter  above  referred  to,  as  intended  to  be  left  undefined,  was  not  the  re- 
baptizing  by  the  form  at  large,  or  by  the  hypothetical  form,  for  against  both  of 
these  measures,  the  archdeacon  cautions  his  clergy.  But,  as  in  the  English  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  in  the  introductory  instrument  entitled,  "  Concerning  the 
Service  of  the  Churcli,"  a  minister  under  doubt  is  directed  to  have  recourse  to 
the  ordinary,  and  as  a  doubt  may  occur  concerning  the  words  to  be  made  use  of 
sn  the  admission  of  a  child  privately  baptized — "  I  certify  that  all  is  well  dene, 
&c."  not  because  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  administrator,  but  on  account  of  the 
irregularity  of  the  act,  the  minister  is  counselled  by  Dr.  Sharp  to  avail  himself  of 
the  said  proviso,  attached  to  the  preface  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 


214  Nole  to  pa^e  36. 

that  it  has  an  alliance  with  schism.  But  lie  meant  no 
further,  than  as  regarded  chanting  and  the  sitiging  of  an- 
thems. Yet  to  have  gratified  him,  would  have  heen  an 
high  exercise  of  power.  To  set  ecclesiastical  authority  at 
work  on  a  sulijcct,  which  heretofore,  in  the  Church  of 
England  and  in  this  Church,  and  probably  in  every  other, 
has  been  left  at  large;  would  not  forward,  but  hinder  the 
carrying  of  more  important  discipline  into  effect. 

This  is  not  said,  withiuit  the  being  aware  of  the  great 
abuse  abounding  in  the  department  of  psalmody,  partly,  by 
leaving  the  portions  to  be  sung  to  the  choice  of  clerks  des- 
titute of  judgment;  and  partly,  by  singing  tunes  either  un- 
suitable to  divine  worship;  or  suitable  to  some  of  the  sacred 
compositions,  yet  not  to  those  with  which  they  are  unskil- 
fully connected.  It  was  designed  to  guard  against  both  of 
these  evils,  by  the  rubric  prefixed  to  the  Book  of  Psalms  in 
metre.  That  provision,  if  applied,  is  a  sufiicient  remedy 
for  both.  If  any  thing  further  should  be  attempted,  in  a 
field  open  to  so  great  a  diversity  of  taste,  it  is  probable, 
that  no  convention  would  assemble,  without  projected  im- 
provements prepared  to  be  laid  before  them.  The  fault  of 
the  unnecessary  extension  of  authority,  v/ould  be  felt  in 
changes  without  end. 

In  consequence  of  a  canon  passed  at  the  convention  of 
1804,  there  was  drawn  up  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  and 
sent  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  a  Pastoral 
Letter,  addressed  to  the  members  generally  of  this  Church. 
It  had  been  understood,  that  this  was  a  transaction,  over 
which  the  latter  house  were  to  have  no  control. 

Philadelphia  was  fixed  on  as  the  next  place  of  meeting: 
and,  as  in  the  last  convention,  t'lie  business  was  concluded 
with  prayer  by  the  presiding  bishop,  in  presence  of  both 
houses. 

POSTSCIUPT- 

The  consecration  which  took  place  in  Trinity  Church,  in 
the  city  of  New- York,  May  29,  1611,  soon  after  the  rising 
of  the  convention,  may  be  considered  as  in  some  sort  the 
unfinished  business  of  it.  Accordingly,  any  important  cir- 
cumstance attending  said  act,  may  properly  have  a  place  in 
these  statements. 

Such  a  circumstance  occurred  during  the  service,  and 
was  the  consequence  of  the  inadvertence  of  the  author; 
who,  in  the  imposition  of  hands  on  each  of  the  two  bishops 


JSoie  to  page  36.  215 

elect,  omittod  the  words — "In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  oiliciatin^^  bishop 
was  unconscious  of  the  omission;  and  the  first  intimation 
of  it  to  him,  was  by  Bishop  Jarvis  in  the  way  from  church. 
Althou<^h  the  author  regretted  what  had  hapf)ened,  yet 
he  had  no  expectation  that  any  conchision  would  he  drawn 
from  it,  for  the  impeaching  of  the  validity  of  the  act.  Nei- 
ther would  this  have  happened,  if  it  had  not  fallen  in  with 
the  passions  which  had  been  excited  by  rlie  late  election  in 
New- York. 

Not  long  after  the  consecration,  it  was  published  to  the 
world,  that  the  supposed  act  of  consecration  was  essentially 
defective,  because  of  the  want  of  these  solemn  words. 
Lamentations  were  made  concerning  the  consequences 
which  may  ensue,  to  affect  the  Episcopal  succession  throuo-ji 
future  ages  ;  altogether  owing  to  its  invalidating  of  Bishop 
Hobart's  Episcopal  character  ;  for  not  a  word  was  said  in 
the  publications,  of  its  having  of  the  same  effect  on  Bishop 
Griswold's ;  although  all  the  gentlemen  who  had  noticed 
the  omission,  testified  that  it  applied  to  both  the  cases. 

The  clamour  thus  raised,  was  of  course  met  with  the 
denial,  that  any  precise  form  of  words  was  essential  to  such 
an  occasion.  But  this  not  producing  silence,  inquiry  was 
made  into  the  history  of  the  form,  as  it  stands  in  the  ordinal; 
when  it  appeared,  that  the  words  in  question  were  no  part 
of  the  form  of  the  Church  of  England,  until  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.;  were  never  in  that  of  the  primitive  ChiTrch; 
and  are  not  in  the  Roman  pontifical,  at  this  day.  So  that 
on  the  principle  of  the  opposite  argument,  there  is  not  at 
this  time  a  Christian  bishop  in  the  world.* 

Then  the  objection  took  a  new  turn,  and  was  rested  on 
the  preface  to  the  ordinal;  which  requires  the  consecration 
to  be  conducted  agreeably  to  the  form  in  that  book.  Ac- 
cording to  this,  the  accidental  omission  of  a  word  or  two, 
contained  in  the  book,  nirist  invalidate  any  consecration  or 
ordination  in  which  it  may  happen.  The  absurdity  being 
stated  as  a  consequence,  the  answer  was,  that  in  this  in- 
stance, the  omitted  words  involve  an  important  doctrine  of 
our  holy  religion.  It  was  replied,  that  the  doctrine  appears 
in  many  places  in  the  service ;  and  that  it  is  manifestly  in- 
consistent to  yield,  that  the  mention  of  the  Trinity  during 
the  imposition  of  hands,  is  not  essential  on  the  mere  ground 


*  See  Bishop  Sparrow's  collection,  and  De  Courayer's  Defence  of  the  English 
Ordinations. 


21 G  Note  io  page  39. 

of  the  importance  of  the  doctrine;  to  yield  further,  that  ne- 
cessity is  not  created  hy  positive  institution  only;  and  yet 
to  contend  that  these  united  render  the  words  indispensable. 
The  disposition  manifested  soon  spent  itself;  owing,  as 
is  conceived,  to  the  circumstance,  that  a  few  j^entlemen  of 
talents,  who  had  interested  themselves  on  the  occasion, 
without  havitii^  been  in  the  habit  of  attending  to  the  con- 
cerns of  the  Church,  would  not  commit  their  characters  by 
joining  in  a  criticism  so  indefensible. 


R.  Page  39.     Of  the  Convention  in  1814. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  af  Bishops,  and  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Croes  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 
The  secretaries  of  the  two  houses,  were,  of  the  former,  the 
Rev.  Jackson  Kemper,  and  of  the  latter,  the  Rev.  Ashbel 
Baldwin,  assisted  by  James  Milnor,  Esq. 

The  opening  sermon  was  by  Bishop  Hobart,  of  New- York. 

The  object  at  present,  as  in  relation  to  transactions  of 
former  conventions,  is  principally  to  bring  into  view  some 
facts  which  might  otherwise  be  forgotten,  after  having  had 
an  influence  in  the  determination  of  the  measures  adopted. 

The  ninth  canon,  which  dis|>enses  with  certain  literary 
qualifications  in  some  cases,  had  been  misunderstood  ;  and 
abused  to  the  sustaining  of  the  notion,  that  the  qualification 
serving  for  a  substitute,  is  mere  fluency  of  speech  ;  evidently 
found  in  some  very  ignorant  men,  and  even  in  some  whose 
understandings  are  naturally  weak.  It  was  thought,  that  a 
solemn  declaration,  guarding  against  the  error,  might  be  of 
use. 

The  alteration  of  the  twenty-ninth  canon,  was  occasioned 
by  a  difference  found  in  the  diocesan  constitutions;  and  by 
a  wish  not  to  interfere  therewith,  but  to  leave  them  to  their 
respective  operation.  In  some  states,  no  minister,  not  pro- 
vided with  a  parish,  and  no  deacon,  has  a  seat  or  vote  in 
the  convention.  In  others,  a  contrary  provision  had  been 
made.  What  brought  the  subject  into  view  at  this  time, 
was  a  change  which  had  taken  place  in  Connecticut;  the 
old  law,  of  excluding  non-j)arochial  ministers  and  deacons, 
having  given  way  to  the  contrary  regulation,  much  to  the 
dissatisfaction  of  some  of  the  clergy.  The  difference  did 
not  come  under  question  in  the  General  Convention.  But 
it  seemed  reasonable  in  this  body,  while  they  avoided  in- 


Note  to  page  39.  21 1 

eluding  the  two  descriptions  of  persons  alluded  to,  in  the 
provision  for  the  office  of  institution,  not  to  interfere  with 
the  economy  of  those  dioceses  wherein  they  were  admitted. 

The  opinion  is  here  avowed,  that  the  latter  course  is  the 
most  proper,  although  not  alleged  to  be  necessary.  Other- 
wise, the  Church  may  he  deprived  of  the  counsel  of  some 
of  the  ablest  of  her  ministers,  who  are  prevented  from  the 
acceptance  of  parishes  by  allowable  causes;  for  example, 
the  filling  of  professorshijjs  in  literary  institutions.  Besides, 
there  may  be  aged  clergymen,  unfit  for  active  service,  andl 
yet,  not  the  less  competent  to  the  giving  of  advice.  It  is  a 
very  great  injury  to  religion,  what  has  occasionally  hap- 
pened, and  will  be  especially  apt  to  occur  in  every  large 
city,  that  a  man  in  holy  orders  may  find  it  an  eligible  place 
of  residence,  for  enjoyment  or  for  the  management  of  some 
secular  business.  His  life  may  be  a  scandal  to  the  Church: 
and  yet,  it  would  be  thought  unreasonable  to  sidjject  him 
to  religious  discipline,  under  a  constitution  not  acknowledg- 
ing him,  as  having  an  interest  in  it. 

What  was  done  in  relation  to  the  fortieth  canon,  was  at 
the  instance  of  the  clerical  members  from  Connecticut. 
The  canon  provides,  that  every  clergyman  shall  keep  a  list 
of  his  adult  parishioners.  In  the  said  state,  considerable 
diflicidty  vvas  alleged  to  have  arisen,  as  to  what  may  be 
called  a  joint  act,  in  the  case  of  a  person  baptized  in  some 
other  communion,  but  joining  his  or  herself  to  this  Church. 
In  the  case  supposed,  the  joint  act  must  have  been  of  the 
person  and  of  the  minister  recording  his  name.  Under 
existing  circumstances,  it  does  not  appear  how  the  query 
could  have  been  solved,  except  in  the  way  suggested  by  the 
bishops  ;  that  is,  by  bringing  the  matter  to  the  test  of 
whatever  was  considered  by  both  of  the  parties,  as  tending 
to  the  eflTect  contemplated.  It  must  be  confessed,  however, 
that  this  manifests  an  imperfect  state  of  discipline.  The 
subject  is  worthy  of  the  provision  of  a  religious  form,  with 
the  view  of  establishing  the  certainty  of  the  transaction. 
But  to  make  such  a  provision  consistent,  none  besides  per- 
sons of  fiiir  characters  should  be  admitted  within  the  pale  : 
others  to  be  allowed  as  hearers,  and  even  to  occupy  sittings 
within  a  church,  but  not  to  have  votes  in  its  concerns. 

There  was  nothing  further  done  in  relation  to  the  canons, 
except  the  making  of  a  slight  alteration  in  the  forty-fifth ; 
designed  to  dispense  with  the  duty  of  reading,  in  the  General 
Convention,  the  reports  of  the  conventions  in  the  diflferent 
states. 

28 


218  Note  to  page  31^. 

Perhaps  some  reason  may  be  requlreJ  for  llie  delay  stllTv 
occurring  in  re<^artl  to  llic  review  of  the  Homilies,  recog- 
nized as  they  are  in  the  articles.     There  had  been  some 
correspondence  on  the  subject  between  two  of  the  bishops, 
the  author  and  Bishop  llobart.     But  it  is  involved  in  more 
difficulty    than    would    easily  be  supposed  by  any  person 
who   has    not    attcnrled   to  it   particularly.     That   besides- 
Tcrbal  alterations,  some  others  are  callt;d  for,  is  universally 
agreed.     But  to  make  the  latter,  without  departing  from 
ihe  principle  of  avoiding  the  charge,  and  even  of  giving, 
])lausible  ground  to  any  t(^  pretend,  that  we  have  deviated, 
in  respect  to  doctrine,  is  scarcely  to  be  expected.     On  this 
account  the  author  is  not  sure,  that  it  will  not  be  best  to 
leave  the  two  books  as  they  now  stand  :  being  referred  to 
in  the  articles,  as  a  larger  explication  of  Christian  doctrine  y 
without    its    being  understood,    that  assent  to  the   article 
implies  approbation  of  every  sentiment  in  the  Homilies,  or 
of  every  series  of  reasoning  whereby  any  doctrine  of  them 
is  sustained.     At  the  same  time,  if  any  minister  incline  to 
read  a  hoiiiily  from    his  pulpit  or  from  his  desk,   and  will 
take  the  trouble  of  clearing  it  from  its  obsolete  terms  and 
local  references,  (if  there  be  any)  there  is  nothing  to  hinder 
his  doing  so.     In  another  point  of  view,  however,  it  ap- 
peared of  the  utmost  consequence  to  take  some  measure  in 
regard  to  those  very  instructive  compositions.     Their  being 
sanctioned  by  the  thirty-fifth  article,  which  is  assented  to 
by  all  persons  admitted  to  the  ministry,  renders  it  absolutely 
necessary  that  they  should  have  the  means  of  perusing  them, 
and  even  of  well  weighing  their  contents.     This  is  not  al- 
ways easily  to  be  accomj>lished.     Accordingly,  it  was  judged 
expedient  to  encourage  a  publication  of  them;  with  a  cau- 
tion against  its  being  understood,  that  this  Church  is  con- 
cerneil  in  what  relates  to  the  civil  policy  of  Great-Britaiu 
tinder  these  views  of  the  subject,  they  have  since  been 
printed. 

For  the  sense  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  delivered  by  thena 
on  this  subject,  see  Appendix,  No.  27. 

The  measure  which  appears  on  the  minutes,  designed  to 
introduce  the  posture  of  standing  during  the  act  of  singing 
portions  of  the  psalms  and  of  the  hymns  in  metre,  requires 
to  be  accounted  for.  It  professes  to  have  been  adopted  for 
the  avoiding  of  diversity  of  custom.  But  there  may  be  an 
interesting  question,  as  to  the  cause  of  that  diversity. 

It  is  evident,  that  psalms  in  metre  are  not  known  in  the 
njubrics  of  the  Church  of  England.     And  yet,  it  was  pro- 


N(jtc  to  page  39.  t>19 

'vided  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  reformation,  by  the  act 
of  uniformity  then  passed,  that  psahns  or  prayers,  taken  out 
of  the  Bible,  might  be  used  in  divine  service,  provided  it 
were  not  done  to  the  omitting  of  any  part  thereof.  Tiiis 
Avas  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  In  the  course  of  that  reign, 
'Sternhold  and  Hopkins  edited  their  version;  which  must 
have  been  brought  into  use,  not  by  any  special  act  of  au- 
thority, but  under  the  sanction  of  tiiat  provision.  These 
facts  have  been  stated,  in  a  preceding  part  of  the  present 
work.  They  are  again  referred  to,  in  order  to  make  tbeni 
a  ground  of  the  supposition,  that  the  posture  of  sitting  grew 
out  of  the  laxity  of  manner,  in  which  this  part  of  the  public 
devotion  was  introduced.  When  the  present  writer  was  in 
England,  during  the  whole  of  the  year  1771,  and  nearly  the 
half  of  1772,  he  was  not  in  any  church  wherein  the  people 
stood  at  the  singing  of  the  metre  psalms.  He  does  not  re- 
member to  have  seen  it,  during  his  short  visit  to  that  coun- 
try, about  fifteen  years  afterwards.  And  yet  it  seems  well 
attested  of  late,  that  the  posture  of  standing  prevails  in 
London  and  its  vicinity,  and  elsewhere.  It  is  said  to  have 
been  introduced  by  the  late  excellent  bishop  of  London — Dr. 
Porteus;  and  this  is  very  probable.  The  custom  had 
travelled  to  some  congregations  in  this  country  ;  wherein, 
until  lately,  it  is  not  probable  that  there  was  a  single  con- 
gregation who  stood  during  this  part  of  the  service.  In 
order  to  put  an  end  to  the  diversity,  and  under  the  convic- 
tion that  standing  is  the  more  fit  and  decent  posture,  the 
■bishops  proposed,  and  the  other  house  a|)proved  of  the 
measure  which  has  been  adopted. 

For  this  document,  see  Appendix,  No.  28. 

It  appears  on  the  journal,  that  on  a  proposal  of  a  presby- 
ter of  this  Church,  to  add  to  the  anthems  serving  on  certain 
festivals,  instead  of  the  "  Venite,"  certain  forms  from  the 
Psalms,  &c.  prepared  by  himself  with  musical  accompani- 
ments, the  House  of  Bishops  proposed,  and  were  concurred 
with  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  a  deter- 
mination not  to  enter  on  a  review  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  during  the  present  session  ;  which  may  seem  too 
general  for  the  occasion.  Certainly  tho  two  houses  had  it 
so  pleased  thein,  might  have  proposed  to  the  next  conven- 
tion a  particular  change,  without  going  a  step  farther.  But 
had  it  been  moved  by  any  member,  and  made  a  subject  of 
discussion,  any  other  member  might  have  done  the  same ; 
so  that  a  general  review  might  have  been  the  consequence. 
As  for  the  anthems,  they  were  such  as  might  have  been  ex- 


220  Note  to  page  39. 

pected  from  the  musical  sufficiency  ofthe  proposer.  There 
was  another  matter  of  a  different  nature,  comprehended 
under  the  determination  of  the  two  houses.  A  reverend 
memher  of  the  convention  had  brought  to  it  a  manuscript 
work  of  his  own,  on  an  important  subject  of  rehgion,  which 
he  wished  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  body.  It  is  not  easy  to 
calculate  the  time  tlicy  might  have  been  ke]jt  together,  for  a 
due  examination  of  a  work  of  this  sort,  nor  how  many  simi- 
lar applications  in  future  would  have  grown  out  of  compli- 
ance in  the  present  instance.  The  reasons  of  the  conven- 
tional measures  in  the  above  cases,  are  recorded  with  the 
hope,  that  they  will  have  weight  on  the  like  occasions,  if 
they  should  occur. 

For  the  determination,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  29. 

The  reference  to  the  bishops,  and  to  other  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  for  the  obtaining  of  information  on  the  subject 
of  a  theological  school,  originated  thus.  The  convention  in 
South-Carolina,  had  instructed  their  deputies  to  propose 
the  establishing  of  such  an  institution;  and  accordingly,  it 
had  been  moved  and  discussed  in  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies,  and  by  them  negatived.  On  the  last 
day  of  the  session,  it  was  moved  in  the  House  of  Bishops, 
by  the  bishop  of  the  Church  in  that  state.  The  question 
was  argued  with  much  interest,  although  with  the  utmost 
moderation,  by  that  bishop  on  one  side,  and  by  the  assistant 
bishop  of  the  Church  in  the  diocese  of  New-York,  on  the 
other.  The  design  interfered  especially  with  the  views  of 
the  latter,  who  had  adopted  measures,  and  issued  proj)osals, 
for  the  instituting  of  a  seminary  under  the  immediate  super- 
intendence of  himself  and  his  successors.  It  was  to  have 
been  seated  in  New-Jersey,  and  the  bisho|)of  that  state  was 
to  have  been  joined  in  the  superintendence.  The  present 
author,  conscious  that  he  had  not  given  much  attention  to 
the  subject  in  this  comparative  view  of  it,  and  ])crcciving 
that  existing  circumstances  woidd  prevent  a  determination 
during  the  present  session,  avoided  the  opening  of  his  mind 
as  to  the  merits  ofthe  question. 

The  proposal  respecting  a  copy-right  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  had  been  suggested  as  a  mean  of  obtain- 
ing an  handsome  fund  for  beneficial  j)urji<)scs.  Besides  the 
difficulties  in  the  vv.ay,  suggested  in  the  instrument  relative 
to  the  obtaining  of  information  on  the  subject,  there  is  the 
insuperable  objection  which  it  seemed  the  most  ])rudent  not 
to  notice,  that  although  the  Church  docs  not  now  contcm- 
ulate  alterations  in  her  liturgy,  yet  she  ought  not  to  commit 


Note  to  page  39 .  22 1 

herself  in  a  measure,  which  would  put  it  beyond  her  power 
for  a  considerable  course  of  years.  To  have  given  this  as 
a  reason,  might  have  been  misunderstood  by  the  public. 
Independently  on  that  circumstance,  there  were  those  who 
had  been  formerly  witnesses  of  jealousy  excited  by  this 
cause,  which  they  wished  never  to  see  renewed,  so  long  as 
there  are  other  ways  of  guarding  the  integrity  of  the  book 
against  corrupt  copies.  In  most,  and  probably  ail,  of  the 
present,  there  are  some  errata ;  which,  in  general,  may  be 
detected  by  the  reader,  and  which  might  be  more  effectually 
guarded  against  by  an  authoritative  table. 

The  declaration  of  the  bishops,  approved  of  by  the  other 
house,  relative  to  the  identity  of  this  Church  with  the  body 
formerly  known  by  the  name  of  "  the  Church  of  England  in 
America,"  arose  from  the  circumstance,  that  in  some  cause 
or  causes  pending  in  the  courts,  this  identity  had  been 
denied. 

The  bishops  were  informed  by  one  of  their  body,  that  not 
long  ago,  the  sentiment  had  been  expressed  to  him  by  a 
gentleman  high  in  otlice,  who  grounded  what  he  alleged  on 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  edited  in  17i:^5.  The  title  of 
this  book  declares  it  to  be  a  proposal.  It  was  never  ratified, 
as  will  appear  on  a  reference  to  the  journals.  Had  a  sub- 
sequent convention  ratified  it,  the  inference  would  have  been 
untenable  in  regard  to  a  Church,  the  principles  of  which,  a-! 
of  the  Church  from  which  it  became  separated  by  a  dispen- 
sation of  Providence,  declares  its  competency  to  every  act 
of  self-government.  The  identity  of  the  body  remained, 
although  accompanied  by  a  newly  acquired  independence. 
Still  the  plea,  on  the  ground  taken  from  it,  is  invalidated 
by  the  non-acceptance  of  the  book.  It  being  foreseen,  that 
this  pretence  will  be  set  up,  whenever  the  appeal  shall 
come  on  in  Washington  ;  there  was  supposed  to  be  a  call  for 
the  declaratory  instrument,  which  has  occasioned  the  present 
explanation. 

There  was  a  consideration  which  rendered  the  declaration 
especially  expedient,  but  not  proper  to  be  noticed  on  the 
journal.  The  opposite  principle  was  the  known  opinion  of 
some  leading  characters  of  Virginia;  who,  on  that  ground, 
had  defended  the  act  of  the  legislature  of  that  state,  which 
deprived  our  communion  of  its  churrhes  and  its  glebes. 

Although  the  question  here  referred  to,  was  brought  be- 
fore the  convention  incidentally;  yet,  as  it  may  hereafter  be 
a  subject  of  more  considerable  attention,  and  big  with  im- 
portant consequences,  occasion  shall  be  taken  to  state  the 


222  Note  iQ  pa^e  39. 

reasons  for  supporting  the  position,  that  what  is  now  called 
•'  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,'* 
is  precisely,  in  succession,  the  body  formerly  known  by  the 
name  of  "  the  Church  of  England  in  America ;"  the  changes 
of  name  having  been  the  dictate  of  a  change  of  circum- 
stances, in  th-j  civil  constitution  of  the  country.* 

1st.  From  the  beginning  of  the  organizing  of  this  Church, 
the  principle  has  prevailed.  It  impelled  the  applying  to 
England  for  consecration,  in  preference  to  another  country, 
where  it  might  have  been  easily  had,  without  the  making  of 
requests,  not  to  be  complied  with  but  by  the  interference  of 
the  legislature  of  a  foreign  country,  which  the  venerable 
persons  petitioned,  might  not  be  able  to  obtain. 

2dly.  It  will  very  much  tend  to  check  the  spirit  of  inno- 
vation, on  any  essential  point  of  doctirine,  because,  if  such 
a  matter  should  be  attempted,  the  original  standard  will  be 
appealed  to ;  and  the  adherents  to  it  will  plead,  that  they 
are  the  Church  from  which  the  innovators,  whether  many 
or  few,  have  departed.  This  needs  not  to  hinder  altera- 
tions in  less  important  matters ;  because,  notwitlistanding 
the  parentage  gloried  in  by  us,  we  are  an  independent 
•Church,  and  so  acknowledged  by  that  from  which  we  plead 
to  have  descended. 

3dly.  The  security  of  property  is  a  consideration.  This 
has  been  spoken  of  already ;  but  there  shall  be  added  in- 
formation received  from  a  respectable  source.  It  is,  that 
on  the  arrival  of  I5ishop  Seabury  in  Connecticut,  he  con- 
sulted his  friend.  Dr.  William  Samuel  .Johnson,  of  Strat- 
ford, whose  leaning  to  him  and  his  cause,  with  a  strong  at- 
tachment to  the  Episcopal  Church,  cannot  be  doubted,  as 
to  his  right  to  the  income  of  a  handsome  landed  property, 
left  for  the  support  of  a  future  bishop  of  the  Church  of 
Enulnnd  in  America.  Dr.  Johnson  is  said  to  have  been  of 
■opinion,  that  Bishoj)  Seabury  could  not  claim  it. 

4thly,  and  princij)ally  ;  regard  is  here  had  to  there  being 
a  fence  to  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  prevalent  in  the  days  of 
Edward  VI.  Any  superadditions,  which  may  have  been 
either  popular,  or  introduced  by  influential  churchmen 
aftervv'ards,  are  here  j)ut  out  of  view. 

"  Since  the  penning  of  tliese  remarks,  the  author  has  seen,  in  print,  a  serious 
endeavour  to  date  the  origin  of  the  Episcojjal  Churcii,  iVoni  the  period  of  the 
consecration  of  her  bishops.  Tiie  position  is  rested  on  grounds,  whicli  do  not 
hern  seem  to  call  for  a  professed  refutation :  hut  it  may  be  remarked,  that  the 
sentiments  expressed  by  the  House  of  IJisliops,  and  advocated  in  this  place,  apply 
to  the  notion  now  referred  tu,  as  well  as  to  that  of  which  they  were  professedly 
intended . 


Note  io  pa^e  39,  223 

The  principle  contended  for  cnnnot  be  uiKlcrstood,  witli- 
out  remarking  the  distinction  between  a  sameness  of  two 
C'hnrches  in  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship,  and  their 
identity  in  a  corporate  capacity.  When  in  the  reign  of 
James  I.,  and  afterward  in  that  of  Charles  IL,  there\vere 
consecrated  in  England  bishops  for  the  Chnrch  of  Scotland, 
the  Churches  of  the  two  countries  were  the  same  in  the 
particulars  of  principle  above  mentioned;  but  were  so  far 
from  being  one,  that  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  it,  and  to 
guard  against  a  consequent  ascendancy  of  the  English 
hierarchy  over  that  of  Scotland,  it  was  carefully  provided, 
at  each  of  the  times  referred  to,  that  the  bishops  of  the 
latter  country  should  not  be  consecrated  by  either  of  the 
archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York. 

Neither  is  what  is  here  said  intended  to  discountenance 
all  changes,  which  succeeding  circumstances  may  render 
expedient.  In  respect  to  doctrine,  if,  at  any  time,  for  the 
sake  of  comprehension,  there  should  be  silence  on  any 
points  not  essential  to  Christian  verity,  it  would  not  super- 
sede the  principle  here  sustained.  On  the  subject  of 
rites  and  ceremonies;  it  is  the  judgment  of  the  Church 
of  England,  that  they  may  be  regulated  according  to  the 
circumstances  of  different  times  and  places.  And  under 
the  head  of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church  and 
the  discipline  of  it,  there  is  no  reluctance  to  record  the 
opinion,  that  if  an  important  object  were  likely  to  be 
accomplished,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  taking  a 
ground,  whi^h  would  not  be  objected  to  by  the  more 
moderate  of  the  non-episcopalians,  provided  there  ceased 
objections  of  another  kind;  especially  the  greatest  hin- 
derance  of  all,  in  the  irritation  kept  alive  by  the  intem- 
perate zeal  of  some  on  each  side.  But,  if  ever  there  should 
be  a  surrender  of  those  evangelical  truths,  which  are  not 
only  affirmed  in  the  thirty-nine  Articles,  but  pervade  the 
services,  and  are  generally  understood  to  be  the  leading- 
doctrines  of  the  reformation,  its  fall  may  be  counted  on"; 
and  because  of  such  change,  ought  not  to  be  regretted. 

The  maintaining  of  the  above  principle,  consistently  with 
a  strong  desire  of  comprehending  Bishop  Seabury  and  his 
Church  within  our  connexion,  placed  the  author  of  this  in 
very  delicate  circumstances  for  some  time;  especially  as 
he  was  not  so  happy  as  to  have  the  concurrence  of  Bishop 
Provoost,  on  the  latter  subject.  The  author  persevered 
with  him,  in  the  plan  of  obtaining  the  canonical  number 
from  England  ;  but  thought  there  would  be  no  inconsistency, 


224  Note  to  jmgc  43. 

after  the  succession  had  become  complete,  and  even  during' 
the  nieasures  leading  to  it,  in  yielding  |)crsonal  priority  to 
Bishop  Seabury. 

Accordingly,  the  author  will  conclude  with  the  expression 
of  a  feeling,  which  from  his  very  early  years,  has  been 
attendant  on  his  views  of  religion  ;  and  which  he  cannot 
clothe  in  more  appro|)riate  words  than  those  of  Father  Paul, 
of  Venice — "  Esto  perpetua:"  that  is,  may  the  Church  so 
constituted  and  continued,  last  for  ever. 

Because  of  the  importance  of  the  declaration  of  the  con- 
vention on  the  preceding  subject,  it  is  given  in  the  Ap- 
pendix, ISo.  30. 


S.  Page  43.     Of  the  Convention  of  1817. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  House  of  Bishops.  In  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  first  Dr.  Isaac  Wil- 
kins,  of  New- York,  and  afterward  the  Rev.  William  H. 
Wilmer,  of  Alexandria,  presided.  The  secretaries  were, 
of  the  former  house,  the  Ilev.  Benjanjin  T.  Onderdonk, 
and  of  the  latter,  the  Rev.  Ashbel  Baldwin. 

After  divine  service,  and  the  sermon  by  Bishop  Griswold  ^ 
and  in  compliance  with  a  resolve  of  the  last  convention, 
there  was  an  administration  of  the  holy  communion. 

There  having  appeared  at  this  convention  two  bishops,  in 
addition  to  those  formerly  nientioned,  it  falls  within  the  de- 
sign of  this  work  to  record,  that  the  first  of  them,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  James  Kemp,  of  Maryland,  was  consecrated  on  the  first 
of  September,  1814,  in  Christ  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- 
Brunswick,  New-Jersey,  by  the  jiresiding  bishop,  assisted 
by  Bishops  Hobart  and  Moore  ;  and  that  the  other,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  John  Croes,  of  New-Jersey,  was  consecrated  on  the  19th 
day  of  November,  1815,  in  St.  Peter's  ('hurch,  in  the  city 
of  Philadelphia,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  assisted  by  Bishops 
Hobart  and  Kemp. 

Opposition  having  been  made  to  the  consecration  of 
Bishop  Kemp,  the  three  consecrating  bishops  weighed  very 
seriously  the  objections  presented  to  their  notice;  the  more 
so,  as  among  the  signers  of  the  protest  sent,  there  appeared 
the  names  of  persons  known  to  have  possessed  respectability 
in  the  diocese.  The  detailing  of  the  objections  included  in 
the  protest,  with  the  reasons  of  their  adjudged  irrelevancy, 
seems  called  for  by  regard  to  the  future  respectability  of 


iSole  to  pagii  4'?.  225' 

^he   Church,  and  to  the   consistency   of  the   consecralin"- 
bishops. 

The  first  ohjection  was,  that  the  office  of  a  suflragan 
bishop  was  unknown  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Maryland.  On  this  point  it  was  considered,  that  althouoh 
neither  the  office  of  a  suffragan  nor  that  of  a  coadjutor  or 
assistant  bishop,  was  noticed  in  the  constitution,  either  of 
them  might  be  rendered  expedient  by  existing  circum- 
stances, as  a  character  often  met  with  in  the  history  of  the 
(yhristian  Church  ;  that  a  coadjutor  or  assistant  bishop  had 
been  introduced  into  another  diocese,  without  being  men- 
tioned in  its  constitution,  and  yet  without  the  charge  of 
unconstitutionahty ;  that  as  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  now 
in  question,  in  the  year  1811,  had  proposed  the  electing  of 
a  bishop  to  aid  him,  he  must  have  presumed  the  legality  of 
the  measure,  and  it  did  not  since  appear  that  he  had  altered 
his  mind,  or  that  the  sentiment  had  been  until  now  contra- 
dicted by  any  person  ;  that  in  1812,  the  convention  had 
balloted  on  tlie  question  of  having  a  suffragan,  and  although 
it  was  then  carried  in  the  negative,  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  were  supposed  by  any  of  the  members  to  be  irregularly 
occupied.  Even  the  signers  of  the  protest  must  have 
thought  it  regular  at  the  time. 

The  second  objection  denied  that  Dr.  Kemp  had  been 
chosen  by  a  constitutional  majority:  but  the  journal  mani- 
fested the  contrary  ;  there  appearing,  to  have  been  in  his 
favour  two-thirds  of  the  members  present.  This  objection 
was  stated  in  such  general  terms,  that  it  could  not  have 
been  much  relied  on. 

The  third  objection  imported,  that  the  general  opinion 
concerning  the  measure  of  choosing  a  suffragan,  had  been 
expressed  by  the  silence  of  the  convention  of  1813;  the  ne?it 
after  that  which  had  negatived  the  measure.  There  may 
have  been  some  reason  for  this,  which  the  consecrating 
bishops  had  no  means  of  obtaining.  The  prospect  of  the 
returning  health  of  the  diocesan  bishop,  may  have  been  the 
reason.  The  bishops  however  perceived,  from  inspection  of 
the  journals,  that  of  nineteen  clergymen  ^and  thirty-two 
laymen  present  in  the  convention  of  1813,  not  a  third  of 
either  order  had  been  induced  to  sign  the  protest.  Although 
there  were  in  this  convention  two  more  of  the  clergy,  and 
seven  more  of  the  laity  than  in  that  of  1814,  when  the 
choice  was  made ;  yet  the  members  of  the  latter  were  pre- 
cisely those  of  1812;  when  no  fault  appears  to  have  been 
alleged  against  the  balloting  for  a  suffragan,  because  of  the 

29 


22f>  Note  to  pa^c  4®. 

pai»cit!y  of  electors.  It  was  further  considered  under  thi> 
head,  that  the  rojjiiisition  of  two-thirds  for  theelectin*^  of  a 
bishop,  as  provided  hy  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Maryland,  and  which  was  satisfied  hy  the  issue  of  tho 
election  in  the  present  instance,  was  prohahly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  guarding  against  an  advantage  which  might  ho 
taken  of  a  thin  convention.  On  any  other  principle,  '\% 
would  seem  to  have  been  unwise  to  make  a  provision,  by 
which  a  sixth  of  the  number  and  one  more,  would  have  it 
in  their  power  to  arrest,  at  pleasure,  all  Episcopal  adminis- 
tration in  the  diocese. 

The  fourth  objection  rested  on  the  charge  of  surprise 
and  management.  Nothing  of  these  v/as  apparent  on  the 
journal.  They  are  not  a  gromid  on  which  an  election  may 
be  set  aside.  In  the  collision  of  parties,  they  are  commonly 
charged  by  each  on  the  other.  On  the  present  occasion,  no 
specific  facts  were  alleged,  and  no  evidence  was  offered. 

On  the  whole  subject  of  the  objections,  the  bishops  were 
of  oj)inion,  that  if  the  substance  of  the  protest  was  designed 
to  arrest  the  consecration,  it  ought  to  have  been  communi- 
cated to  the  convention  by  which  Dr.  Kemp  had  been 
elected;  and  that  after  the  neglect  of  this,  the  defect  ought 
to  have  been  in  some  measure  supplied,  by  its  being  made 
known  to  the  bishops  cabled  on  to  consecrate,  that  the  in- 
strument, which  was  put  into  print  for  the  ease  of  multiply- 
ing copies,  had  been  communicated  individually  to  those 
who  were  so  materially  interested  in  its  contents.  These 
remarks  were  designed  to  have  an  es[)ecial  bearing  on  the 
position  of  the  protest,  that  the  succession  of  the  bishop 
elect  to  the  diocesan  Episcopacy  was  carried  by  acclamation. 
The  bishops  were  possessed  of  evidence,  that  the  questioa 
was  put,  and  the  vote  taken,  in  the  usual  form  of  conven- 
tional business.  They  were  the  more  induced  to  rely  on 
the  testimony  to  this  effect  by  the  circumstance,  that  among 
the  afiirmants  of  the  contrary,  there  were  some  who  were 
not  present  at  the  disgraceful  transaction,  if  it  happened. 

In  addition  to  the  protest,  there  was  exhibited  by  the 
presiding  bishop,  a  letter  to  him  from  two  clergymen  of  the 
diocese,  charging  the  bishop  elect  with  being  unsound  in 
the  faith,  and  an  enemy  to  vital  godliness.  If  the  signers 
of  the  letter  had  substantiated  the  first  of  the  two  charges-, 
or  the  latter  of  them,  in  the  sense  understood  in  scripture 
under  the  term  "  godliness,"  essentially  involving  renovation 
of  the  affections  manifested  in  the  fruits  of  holiness,  the 
bishops  would  have  rejected  the  application  before  them, 


JSote  to  jm^e  4-3.  227 

from  the  respectable  diocese  of  Maryland.  But,  the  writers 
oi"  the  letter  alleged  no  specific  facts;  they  referred  to  no 
evidence ;  and  the  accused  party  declared,  that  they  had 
not  even  notified  to  him  the  accusation. 

The  writers  of  the  letter  demanded  a  hearing  by  counseL 
Getting  aside  the  insufficiency  of  the  aj)plicants,  the  novelty 
of  the  proposal,  and  all  question  of  the  propriety  of  such 
a  precedent  to  be  set  by  any  three  bishojjs  who  might  be 
assembled  ;  it  could  not  but  occur  to  those  now  present, 
that  the  other  party  in  the  case  would  be  the  convention  of 
Maryland,  who  had  no  opportunity  of  being  heard  by  coun- 
sel. Had  Dr.  Kemp  been  considered  as  the  other  party, 
there  would  have  been  evident  impropriety  in  subjecting  him 
to  a  kearing,  under  a  charge  brought  against  him  unex- 
pectedly, and  remote  from  his  place  of  residence.  Perhaps 
it  was  expected,  that  the  •consecration  would  be  delayed, 
with  a  view  to  a  future  hearing.  But  neither  ought  the 
bishops  to  have  acceded  to  this,  when  it  would  have  been 
to  subject  to  reproach  the  character  of  a  clergyman,  who 
had  been  greatly  respected  in  the  diocese  during  nearly 
twenty-five  years,  and  this  at  the  request  of  two  clergymen, 
who  do  not  appear  to  have  hazarded  the  charges  in  the 
convention  ;  and  who,  in  bringing  them  forward  at  this  time, 
must  have  thought  differently  from  tliose  who  joined  with 
them  in  the  protest.  For  it  would  be  injurious  to  the  reli- 
gious profession,  and  to  the  understandings  of  the  latter,  to 
suppose  that  they  had  withheld  those  charges,  while  they 
were  urging  objections  of  far  less  magnitude.* 

These  were  the  reasons  on  which  the  bishops  rested  their 
procedure,  and  they  were  detailed  by  them,  in  a  letter  to 
Bishoj)  Claggett. 

Soon  after  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Kemp,  the  object  of 
the  oj)position  to  him,  as  it  was  cherished  by  some  of  his 
opponents,  showed  itself  without  disguise.  Four  or  five 
clergymen,  who  had  obtained  the  concurrence  of  some  re- 
spectable persons  in  that  preparatory  measure,  but  not  in 
what  followed,  applied  first  to  Bishop  Claggett,  and,  on  his 
refusal,  to  Bishop  Provoost,  to  consecrate  singly  the  person 
who  should  be  elected  by  the  applicants.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  prove,  that  the  bishops  so  applied  to  were  men  of  too 


*  It  was  with  a  view  to  an  influence  on  the  question  of  the  election  of  Dr. 
Kemp,  that  the  story  concerning  the  election  of  Dr.  Griffith,  noticed  in  this  worU 
(page  144.)  was  handed  about;  probably  fabricated  by  some,  but  certainly  be- 
.Sieved  without  intentional  error  by  others. 


•228  Note  io  page  43. 

much  truth  and  honour,  to  have  considcrcti  for  a  moment  of 
so  unprincipled  a  proposal.  Jiut  the  matter  should  be  re- 
membered, as  pregnant  with  admonition.  A  bishop  of  this 
Church,  during  the  service  of  consecration,  after  uttering 
the  solemn  words — "In  the  name  of  God,  amen,"  promises 
conformity  and  obedience  to  the  doctrine,  the  discipline,  and 
the  worship  of  this  Church.  According  to  the  application, 
all  the  checks  designed  to  govern  in  admission  to  the  Epis- 
copacy, were  to  be  disregarded. 

That  small  number  of  clergymen  exhibited  themselves  as 
competent  to  an  act,  to  which  they  had  recently  affirmed  an 
incompetency,  in  two-thirds  of  the  clergy  and  representa- 
tives of  the  laity,  in  convention.  And  all  this  was  under 
the  profession  of  serving  the  cause  of  vital  godliness. 

On  the  subject  of  a  theological  school,  discussed  in  the 
General  Convention,  as  set  forth  on  the  journal,  a  plan, 
different  from  that  adopted,  was  recommended  by  the  con- 
vention of  Pennsylvania.     It  w'as  as  follows  : — 

"  1st.  That  there  be  a  recommendation  to  the  Church  in 
the  several  states,  to  raise  a  fund,  the  income  of  which  may 
be  apphed,  as  the  general  wisdom  of  the  Church  may 
direct. 

"  2dly.  That  wherever  there  is  such  a  concentration  of 
clergymen,  as  that  they  can  assemble  often,  and  at  conve- 
nient times,  they  may  be  requested  to  bestow  their  endea- 
vours gratuitously,  for  the  accomplishing  of  the  present 
object;  and, 

"  3dly.  That  the  income  of  the  contemplated  funds  be 
applied  to  such  local  endeavours,  if  thought  expedient,  so 
as  to  secure  the  especial  attention  of  one  or  more  of  the 
clergy,  to  be  devoted  altogether  or  in  part,  to  the  educating 
of  young  men  for  the  ministry,  until  a  general  plan  be 
adopted,  if  that  should  be  considered  hereafter  as  more 
eligible." 

The  reasons  whicli  weighed  to  the  preference  of  this  plan, 
were — the  time  intervening  between  one  convention  and 
another — the  expediency  of  limiting  the  views  of  that  body, 
to  what  is  essential  to  the  keeping  of  us  together  as  one 
Church — the  danger  of  local  jealousies,  and — the  easier 
maintenance  of  students,  under  their  paternal  roofs:  which 
would  not  always  apply  according  to  cither  of  the  schemes, 
but  would  be  much  more  frequent  under  that  proposed  than 
under  the  other.  There  was,  hovA'cver,  such  a  latitude  left 
by  the  suggestion  from  Pennsylvania,  as  that  there  might 
hereafter  be  a  general  seminary  grafted  on  it,  cither  to  the 


Note  to  page  43.  229 

superseding  oi'the  local  schools,  or  for  the  finishing-  of  the 
education  of  the  scholars,  as  might  be  expedient,  it  is  to 
be  hoped,  that  the  other  plan,  after  having  been  generally 
adopted,  will  be  universally,  and  with  effect,  supported. 

On  the  subject  of  improper  amusements,  tliere  was  a  con- 
troversy of  some  warmth,  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies.  In  the  House  of  Bishops,  there  was  unanimity 
in  the  course  taken.  Tiiis  course  as  recorded  on  the  journal, 
and  including  some  sentiments  in  the  Pastoral  Letter,  ad- 
dressed to  the  members  of  the  Church  generally,  and  read 
as  usual  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  was 
said  to  have  conciliated  to  their  disappointment,  these  in  the 
latter  house  who  had  pressed  for  a  stronger  measure,  which 
had  not  been  carried.  There  having  been  misrepresenta- 
tions of  what  passed  on  this  subject  from  speakers  on  each 
side;  and,  as  what  finally  proceeded  from  the  bishops  was 
said  to  have  been  satisfactory  to  each,  tiiere  may  be  use  in 
presenting  it  at  large ;  accordingly,  it  is  given  in  tiie  Appen- 
dix, No.  31. 

The  proposal  for  the  adopting  of  a  standard  edition  of  the 
Bible,  was  in  consequence  of  the  discovery  of  a  large  edition, 
extending  very  widely  a  corruption  of  Acts  vi.  3.  by  per- 
verting it  to  a  sanction  of  congregational  ordination.  In- 
stead of  "  wXmmice  may  appoint  over  this  business,"  which 
is  the  exact  translation  of  the  original,  the  edition  has  it 
"  whom  ye  may  appoint  over  this  business."  While  the 
matter  was  before  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
a  lay  member,  standing  in  a  pew,  and  observing  a  Bible, 
took  it  to  turn  to  the  place  in  question,  when  he  perceived 
it  to  be  a  copy  of  the  edition  in  which  the  corruption  had 
been  detected.  The  proposal  of  determining  on  a  standard 
edition,  had  been  made  without  the  expectation  of  its  being 
acted  on  during  the  session.  It  was  closed  with  a  joint 
vote  of  the  two  houses,  to  hold  the  next  triennial  meeting 
in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  and  with  prayer  by  the  presiding 
bishop,  before  both  houses,  as  usual. 

Although  the  object  of  the  "  Additional  Statements  and 
Remarks"  is  limited  to  the  proceedings  of  the  General 
Convention  of  1S17;  there  being  no  subsequent  transac- 
tions which  have  bearings  on  the  doctrine,  or  the  worship, 
or  the  discipline  of  the  Church  ;  yet  it  may  not  be  irrelevant 
to  record,  that,  since  that  period,  there  have  been  conse- 
crated the  Rev.  Philander  Chase,  D.D.  for  the  state  of  Ohio, 
and  the  Rev.  Thomas  C.  Browneli,  D.  D.  LL.  D.  for  the 
gtate  of  Connecticut:  the  former,  on  the  11th  day  of  Fe- 


230  Postscript. 

bruary,  1819,  in  St.  James's  Clitircli,  Philadelphia,  by  the 
presiding  bishop,  assisted  by  Bishops  llobart,  Kemp,  and 
Croes;  and  the  latter,  on  the  27th  day  of  October,  1819,  in 
Trinity  Church,  New-Haven,  by  tlie  presiding  bishop,  as- 
sisted by  Uishops  Hobart  and  Griswokl. 

As  the  act  of  the  convention  of  1785  was  authenticated 
by  the  signatures  of  all  the  members  of  the  body  ;  as  it  laid 
tbe  foundation  of  the  succeeding  transactions ;  and  as  it 
has  never  been  given  in  full  to  the  public  ;  the  only  evidence 
of  it  being  the  original,  in  the  possession  of  the  author;  it 
has  appeared  to  him,  while  the  preceding  sheets  were  in 
the  press,  that  the  object  of  this  work  calls  for  the  editing 
of  the  instrument  in  its  proper  form.  The  address  to  the 
English  prelates  is  referred  to,  but  not  comprehended  m 
the  act.  Delicacy  having  dictated  the  allowance  of  rea- 
sonable time  for  the  delivery  of  it. 

Neither  of  the  instruments  entitled  "  Alterations,  &c." 
has  been  before  published ;  although  the  results  of  them 
have  appeared,  in  what  has  been  called  the  Proposed  Book: 
but,  as  the  book  is  gradually  disappearing,  it  may  be  here- 
after important,  to  have  an  exhibition  of  them  as  they  stand 
in  the  original  act.  The  constitution  as  then  proposed,  as 
ratified  in  1786,  and  as  done  away  in  1789,  is  in  the  book 
of  printed  journals,  but  not  in  any  preceding  part  of  this 
work. 

For  the  said  act,  see  Appendix,  No.  32. 


POSTSCPJPT. 

In  the  foregoing  statements  and  remarks,  the  more  im- 
jnediate  object  was  the  recording  of  facts,  throwing  light 
on  the  measures  of  conventional  bodies;  and  the  expressing 
of  opinions,  which  arose  out  of  the  various  subjects  under 
notice:  the  opinions  being  proposed,  with  the  hope  that 
they  will  have  such  weight,  as  on  examination  may  bo 
thought  their  due.  The  work  bcjing  brought  to  a  conclu- 
sion, and  the  reader  being  (jualitied  to  judge  of  tlie  merits 
of  another  motive  to  be  disclosed ;  it  is  now  declared  to  be 
the  conviction,  that  instruction  may  be  gathered  from  the 
detail. 

1st.  On  a  retrospect  of  the  low  condition  in  which  the 
Episcopal  Church  had  been  left  by  the  revolutionary  war; 
of  her  clergy,  reduced  almost  to  annihilation ;  of  the  novelty 


Postscrlpl,  231 

of  the  hiislness  arising  out  of  the  existini^  crisis;  of  the 
♦lespair  of  many,  as  to  the  perpetuating  of  the  communion, 
otherwise  than  in  connexion  with  an  estahlisliment,  frotn 
which  it  was  for  ever  severed  ;  of  an  unwillingness  to  re- 
cognize such  a  severance,  although  brought  about  by  the 
providence  of  Ciod,  and  the  recognizing  of  it  agreeable  to  a 
prominent  principle  in  the  institutions  of  the  parent  Church ; 
of  a  difficulty,  to  be  done  away  only  by  legislative  acts, 
which  perhaps  it  would  be  impossible  to  obtain,  and  which 
we  could  not  apply  for,  consistently  with  our  civil  duties  ; 
of  the  apprehension  of  conflicting  opinions  in  different  sec- 
tions of  the  United  States,  between  which  there  had  been 
hitherto  no  religious  intercourse  ;  of  the  existence  of  known 
differences,  on  some  points ;  and  with  all  these  things,  of 
danger  from  selfish  passions,  so  apt  to  intrude  under  im- 
I)osirig  appearances,  defeating  the  best  intended  endeavours 
in  collective  bodies  ;  it  must  be  perceived,  that  there  were 
formidable  obstacles  to  be  surmounted,  in  combining  the 
insulated  congregations  with  the  respective  clergy  of  those 
who  had  any,  under  an  indisputable  succession  of  the  Epis- 
copacy ;  and  with  an  ecclesiastical  legislature,  necessarily 
differing  in  form  from  that  under  which  we  had  been  from 
the  beginning,  yet  the  same  with  it  in  principle.  The  dif- 
ference between  what  has  been  thus  looked  back  on,  and 
the  present  circumstances  of  the  Church,  is  a  ground  of 
gratitude  to  Almighty  God.  In  what  degree,  this  chano-e 
of  prospect  has  been  promotive  of  piety  and  of  correct  con- 
duct, will  not  be  known  until  the  day  which  will  "  try  every 
man's  work,  whether  it  be  of  gold,  and  silver,  and  precious 
stones,"  or,  "  of  wood,  and  hay,  and  stubble."  In  the  mean 
time,  we  have  encouragement  to  proceed,  in  humble  de- 
pendence on  him,  without  whom,  even  "  Paul  may  plant, 
and  Apollos  may  water"  in  vain. 

2d.  It  is  trusted  that  there  will  be  no  indecorum  in  re- 
calling the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  absence  of  selfish 
passion  in  all  the  preceding  records  of  the  results  of  eccle- 
siastical legislation.  If  those  who  have  been  eno-ao-ed  in 
the  proceedings  have  been  supposed  in  this  work  to  have 
fallen  into  error  in  some  instances,  it  is  hoped  that  the  no- 
ticing of  it  will  not  give  offence ;  especially  as  it  is  by  one 
who,  in  the  same  work,  has  occasionally  acknowledged  er- 
ror in  himself,  and  who  is  ready  to  believe,  that  it  may  have 
happened  to  him  in  many  instances,  in  which  he  has  not 
sufficient  sagacity,  nor  sufficient  distrust  of  himself,  for 
ih€  detecting  of  it.     He  confidently  believes  of  the  mem- 


"23 1  Postscript. 

hers  of  the  conventions  generally,  that  they  have  been  ac-* 
Tiiated  by  upright  motives.  Of  his  brethren  in  the  Episco- 
pacy he  bears  testimony,  that  he  has  not  seen  any  occasion 
on  whicii  any  one  of  tiiem  has  manifested  a  disposition  to 
sacrifice  principle  to  any  selfish  gratification.  If  there  be 
thought  correctness  in  these  remarks,  let  the  example  be 
influential  in  similar  proceedings  in  future,  in  all  the 
affairs  which  interest  the  human  mind,  there  is  the  danger 
of  estimating  measures,  according  to  thoir  bearings  on 
some  purposes,  prompted  by  ambition  or  by  vanity.  The 
purposes  are  not  always  discernible  ;  and  there  can  scarcely 
occur  a  question,  on  which  talent,  even  if  it  amount  to  no 
more  than  cunning,  may  not  be  capable  of  drawing  to  itself 
a  party.  In  this  way,  there  have  arisen  most  of  the  dis- 
sentions  which  have  torn  Christendom  into  sects.  As  yet, 
we  have  been  preserved,  by  the  grace  of  God,  from  any 
material  inroads  of  it :  and  the  noticing  of  the  fact  may 
serve,  among  other  weighty  considerations,  to  vigilance 
against  it  in  futiu'e  counsels. 

3d.  Another  lesson  arising  out  of  the  review,  is  that  of 
mutual  concession  in  small  matters,  and  even  in  regard  to 
others  more  important  yet  not  essential,  the  bearing  with 
what  may  not  be  approved  of,  under  the  expectation  that  it 
will  be  foinul  on  trial  better  than  had  been  expected;  or, 
that  it  will  be  corrected  after  more  mature  consideration. 
Of  the  latter  especially,  many  instances  have  occurred,  on 
questions  which,  without  such  fori)earance,  would  assuredly 
have  divided  the  Church  into  communions  censuring,  and 
perhaps  perpetuating  hostility  to  one  another.  As  to  the 
other  branch  of  the  recommendation,  it  is  clearly  the  dictate 
of  a  due  consideration  of  the  various  casts  of  the  tninds  of 
men.  It  would  indeed  be  surprising,  that  any  should  \\\n 
into  the  opposite  error;  did  we  not  know,  how  unbending 
some  are  in  favour  of  their  own  opinions,  even  in  matters 
which  cannot  be  brought  before  the  tribunal  of  conscience; 
so  that  on  a  question  of  taste,  they  are  impatient  under 
every  decision  not  conformable  to  their  wishes.  The  way 
to  bear  down  the  influence  of  men  so  fastidious,  and  under 
so  evident  a  propensity  to  disorder,  is  for  those  more  reason- 
able to  make  sacrifices  to  one  another. 

4tli.  It  will  be  a  most  important  use  of  the  review,  to 
notice  the  undeviating  intention  of  the  Church,  to  make  no 
such  alterations,  as  shall  interfere  with  the  maintaining  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  as  acknowledged  at  the  reforma- 
tion.    That  point  of  time  should  be  kept  in  mind,  in  order 


Postscript.  2M 

lO  protect  the  Church,  not  only  against  threatened  innova- 
tions from  without,  but  also  against  others  which  have  occa- 
sionally showed  tlieir  heads  in  the  Church  of  England,  and 
may  show  their  heads  iu  this  Church,  betraying  a  lurking 
fondness  for  errors  which  had  been  abandoned.     Neither 
have  there  been  wanting  some  among  us,  who  would  have 
drawn  our  system  towards  opinions  which  we  consider  as 
an  approach  to  infidelity,  and  a  mean  of  reconciling  the 
mind  to  it.     We  were  under  the  suspicion  of  intending  this, 
in  our  first  efforts  for  the  organizing  of  the  Church.     It  is 
impossible  to  verify  the  suspicion  by  any  of  the  transactions 
recorded,  or  by  any  of  a  more  private  nature  ;  and  if  indi- 
viduals harboured  the  design,  which  is  not  here  known  to 
have  been  the  case,  they  saw  no  opening  for  the  accom- 
plishing of  it ;  and  accordingly,  permitted  it  to  die  within 
their  bosoms.     There  is  this  further  use  in  the  reference  to 
the  reformation,  that  it  frowns  disapprobation  on  endeavours 
tending  to  debase  our  forms  of  worship,  by  the  intermixture 
of  devotional   exercises   of  a  contrary   cast  of  character. 
How  far  tiiis  abuse  calls  for  tlie  exercise  of  ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  how  far  it  may  be  borne  v^ith,  under  the  ex- 
pectation that  it  carries  in  itself  the  seeds  of  its  dissolution, 
is  a  question  partly  of  conscience,  and  partly  also  of  religi- 
ous prudence.     It  is  a  property  of  the  past  proceedings  of 
our  newly  organized  Church,  that  the  gold  found  by  her  in 
possession,  has  not  been  adulterated  by  any  debasing  alloy  ; 
but  that,  on  the  contrary,  she  has  followed  the  counsel  given 
by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  to  the  Jews,  to  "  ask  for  the  old 
paths  and  to  walk  therein."     In  one  who  has  kept  this 
object  steadily  in  view,  it  will  not  be  thought  inadmissible, 
to  express  his  wish,  and  to  put  up  his  prayer,  that  the  same 
integrity  of  principle   may  be  sustained  by  those  who  are 
now  his  feliow-labourers,  and  may  be  expected  to  survive 
him,  and  by  those  who  may  succeed. 

If  any  thing  were  wanting  to  confirm  him  in  his  senti- 
ments on  the  present  subject,  the  deficiency  would  be  sup- 
plied by  the  many  occasions  which  have  occurred  to  him, 
of  remarking  the  vanity  and  the  love  of  self-exhibition 
manifested  in  endeavours  to  the  contrary  ;  a  fault,  which, 
if  it  be  sometimes  seen  to  subsist  with  general  rectitude  of 
intentions,  is  only  one  instance  out  of  many,  verifying  our 
Lord's  reproof  of  another  species  of  misdirected  zeal — = 
"  Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of." 

5th.  These  Memoirs  may  serve  for  a  check  to  the 
unnecessary  exercise  of  authority ;   and  may   sustain  the 

30 


2*"^  Postscript. 

opinion,  that  there  bein^  retained,  in  profession,  the  essen- 
tials of  Christian  verity;  and,  in  practice,  the  degree  of 
submission  to  pubHc  will  necessary  to  social  worship  ;  mucb 
of  what  is  made  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  law,  may  be 
safely  left  to  the  diversity  of  sentiment  which  is  the  result 
of  difference  of  intelligence,  of  education,  and  of  constitu- 
tional character.  But,  as  in  an  array,  combination  of  force 
is  found  to  excite  their  courage  for  an  enterprise,  more 
hazardous  to  every  one  engaged  in  it  than  a  danger  from 
which  he  would  shrink  in  his  individual  character;  so,  in  a 
representative  body,  a  member  of  it  is  prone  to  calculate  on 
a  degree  of  submission,  beyond  what  he  woiild  have  ima- 
gined in  the  capacity  of  a  sole  legislator,  although  clothed 
with  authority  greater  than  that  in  the  other  case  supposed^ 
In  the  estimation  of  discreet  persons  generally,  ecclesias- 
tical legislation  is  thought  to  have  been  carried  too  far. 
What  the  author  sees  cause  to  lament,  is,  that  many  who 
acknowledge  this  fact,  and  who  are  ready  to  lay  unsparing 
hands  on  matters  formerly  established,  would  bind  on  the 
Church  something  new  and  needless,  and  likely  to  excite 
diversity  of  opinion.  They  will  do  this  with  good  intentions, 
and  without  being  aware  of  the  inconsistency.  In  a  Church 
having  the  secular  arm  for  its  support,  what  has  been  men- 
tioned would  be  an  evil ;  but  it  must  be  ruinous,  if  it  should 
be  dominant  in  a  Church  so  much  acted  on  as  ours  by 
opinion  of  persons  of  all  degrees  in  life,  under  an  organiza- 
tion as  it  were  of  yesterday,  and  therefore  not  having  the 
support  of  habitual  submission  to  its  decisions.  In  these 
eircumstances,  independently  on  other  considerations,  there 
is  a  call  to  the  acquiring  of  a  weight  of  religious  character, 
not  only  in  the  Episcopacy,  but  in  the  other  clergy,  and  m 
the  lay  gentlemen,  to  whom  may  be  committed  the  import- 
ant work  of  making  changes  in  ecclesiastical  institutions. 
Even  with  the  advantage  of  such  a  character,  let  them  be 
aware  of  the  truth  of  the  maxim,  that  one  property  of  the 
art  of  governing,  is  the  taking  of  care  not  to  govern  too 
much.* 


•  During  the  convention  of  1789,  m\A  while  they  were  engaged  in  the  reriew 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  a  lady  of  excellent  understanding,  being  ofttn 
in  the  way  of  hearing  the  subject  discussed  by  some  members  of  the  body,  ad- 
dressed them  to  the  following  etfect — "  When  I  hear  these  things,  I  look  back  to 
the  origin  of  the  Prayer  Book :  and  I  represent  to  my  mind  the  venerable  com- 
pileraofit,  ascending  to  heaven  in  the  flames  which  consumed  their  bodies.  I 
then  look  at  the  improvers  of  this  book  in" — (naming  some  gentlemen  not  want- 
ing in  respectability,  but  very  little  furnished  with  theological  knowledge.) 
"  Th«  conseq^uence  is,  gentlemen,  tliat  I  am  not  sanguine  in  my  expectations  or 


Nvte  id  page  47.  235 

6lh.  Tliclast  contemplated  itnprovenient,  is  tlie  sui^gest- 
wg  of  the  hope,  that  the  time  which  has  been  spent,  and  the 
cares  and  the  labours  which  have  been  bestowed,  by  some 
who  have  gone  to  tiieir  rest  from  their  labours,  and  by 
others  who  have  still  on  their  hands  a  part  of  their  work  to 
be  performed,  will  be  applied  to  the  proper  end — the  pro- 
moting of  truth  and  godliness.  In  every  age  of  the  world 
there  is  open  a  wide  field  for  exertions  to  this  effect;  but 
•the  remark  applies  especially  to  the  present  period,  in  which 
there  have  occurred  extraordinary  and  successful  exertions, 
for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel;  partly  produced  by  for- 
midable combinations  for  tlie  destruction  of  it,  which  have 
been  overruled  to  events  in  contrariety  to  the  licentious 
principles  taught,  and  to  the  disorders  which  they  were  in- 
tended to  perpetuate.  Doubtless,  we  ar€  to  ascribe  the 
issue  to  the  good  providence  of  God,  who,  in  a  variety  of 
ways,  "  makes  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him."  In 
America,  which  lays  open  immense  countries  to  future 
population  and  culture,  the  incitement  applies  with  extra- 
ordinary stress  of  argument ;  and  while  it  should  prompt  all 
the  members  of  this  Church  to  put  forth  their  best  endea- 
vours, each  man  in  his  sphere,  and  according  to  his  ability, 
it  admonishes  him,  to  be  liimself  in  the  consistent  profession, 
in  the  practice  of  the  duties,  and  in  possession  of  the  conso- 
lations of  the  gospel;  without  which,  he  is  not  likely  to  be 
influential  over  others;  and  if  this  should  happen,  his  lamp 
will  be  without  the  oil,  which  is  necessary  to  prepare  him 
for  the  reception  of  the  spiritual  Bridegroom. 

[The  additiunal  statements  of  the  first  edition  here  concluded.'] 


T.  Page  47.     Of  the  Convention  in  1820. 

The  reception  of  Bishop  Moore's  sermon,  appears  on  the 
journal  in  such  a  shape,  as  requires  explanation.  The 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  passed  a  vote,  re- 
questing a  copy  for  publication.  The  House  of  Bishops 
concurred  in  the  vote,  with  the  addition  of  their  thanks, 

respect  to  be  puid  to  your  meditated  changes  in  the  liturgy."  Without  raising 
any  question  concerning  the  logic  of  this  speech,  can  there  be  a  doubt  with  those 
who  know  human  nature,  that  something  like  it  is  the  language  oCmany  a  heart 
in  the  religions  world,  on  the  introduction  oi"  any  novelty  of  which  the  propriety 
.jjjay  be  donbll'iil  ? 


236  Note  to  pui^e  4T. 

which  had  been  omitted  by  the  other  house.     The  reasoiij 
was   the  preacher's   having  made  baptismal  regeneration 
one  of  the  points  of  his  discourse.     Some  of  the  gentlemen, 
and  especially  those  the  most  in  habits  of  friendship  with 
him,  were  displeased  at  this ;  and  hence  the  resolve  on  the 
journal  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  that  it 
will  be  inexpedient  hereafter  to  pass  votes  of  thanks  for 
sermons  delivered  before  General  Conventions,  and  to  re- 
quest copies   for  publication.     The   author   believes,   that 
with  the  majority  of  the  house,  this  resolve  was  owing  not 
to  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  doctrine  of  Bishop  Moore, 
but  to  their  general  viev*^  of  the  subject  of  voting  thanks ; 
which  may  have  suggested  the  apprehension,  that  dissatis- 
faction with  any  point  in  a  conventional  sermon,  be  it  even 
in  the  minds  of  a  ^ew  members  of  the  body,  may  excite  an 
angry  controversy,  not  having  any  tendency  to  settle  the 
matter  in  question.     In  the  House  of  Bishops,  the  vote  of 
thanks  for  the  sermon  was  passed  unanimously. 

So  far  as  the  duty  of  a  conventional  preacher  is  con- 
cerned, the  author  is  of  opinion,  that  there  should  be  care- 
fully avoided  all  questions  on  which  the  sense  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  is  doubtful :  but  it  ii  to  be  lamented,  that 
there  should  be  brought  under  this  head  a  doctrine,  which 
we  have  been  taught  to  lisp  in  the  earliest  repetitions  of  our 
catechism ;  which  pervades  sundry  of  our  devotional  ser- 
vices, especially  the  baptismal;  which  is  affirmed  in  our 
articles  also  ;  which  was  confessedly  held  and  taught  during 
the  ages  of  the  martyrs  ;  and  the  belief  of  which  was  univer- 
sal in  the  Church,  until  it  was  perceived  to  be  inconsistent 
with  a  religious  theory,  the  beginning  and  the  progress  of 
which  can  be  as  distinctly  traced,  as  those  of  any  error  of 
popery.  Tiiis  is  not  a  place  for  a  discussion  of  the  subject, 
but  the  author  has  spoken  fully  to  it  in  some  of  his  publica- 
tions. 

The  recorded  rejection  of  an  application  concerning 
psalms  and  hymns,  is  another  proof  of  the  utility  of  the  re- 
solve referred  to  of  the  convention  of  1814.  It  is  to  be 
hoped,  that  all  future  conventions  will  adhere  to  it.  In  the 
contrary  event,  conventions  will  have  the  weight  of  the  ex- 
amination of  many  books,  brought  before  them  by  authors 
and  by  editors  not  destitute  of  respectability.  Either  the 
examination  will  take  up  more  time  than  the  members  will 
be  disposed  to  bestow,  or,  on  that  account,  errors  will  oc- 
^casionally  be  sanctioned  through  haste.  And  what  they 
^will  sanction,  may  unreasonably  be  branded  as  error,  which 


Note  to  page  47.  237 

will  at  least  have  the  effect  of  unnecessarily  exciting  con- 
troversy. No  objection  was  made  to  the  selection  presented ; 
and  it  is  certain,  that  any  parochial  minister  is  at  hberty  to 
make  or  to  adopt  such  a  selection  from  the  metre  book  of 
psalms  and  hymns,  as  may  be  agreeable  to  his  judgment 
and  to  his  taste. 

In  regard  to  the  title  page,  and  the  disregard  of  the  due 
distinction  of  books,  noticed  in  the  Narrative,  there  have 
been  some  editions  inaccurately  set  forth.  A  little  reiiec- 
tion  will  show,  that  from  want  of  precision  in  this  matter, 
there  may  result  much  confusion  in  the  public  proceedings 
of  the  Church. 

It  was  the  misfortune  of  the  author,  when  the  scheme  of 
a  theological  seminary  was  devised  in  the  convention  of 
1817,  to  differ  from  the  majority  of  both  houses,  as  to  the 
expediency  of  the  measure;  and  he  was  supported  by  the 
convention  of  the  diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  in  proposing  to 
the  General  Convention  a  scheme,  which  would  have  left  to 
local  seminaries  the  whole  concern  of  theological  education. 
From  the  time  that  the  contrary  sentiment  was  adopted,  he 
has  done  what  laid  in  his  power,  for  the  carrying  of  the 
general  wish  into  effect.  It  is  probable,  that  time  will  de- 
cide between  the  two  schemes,  on  the  question  of  preference ; 
but  as  it  is  a  subject  of  increasing  importance,  and  of  in- 
creasing frequency  of  discussion,  he  will  state  his  reasons, 
for  the  preference  given  by  him  to  the  plan  which  he  unsuc^ 
cessfuily  proposed. 

1st.  It  has  been  all  along  his  opinion,  and  there  will  be 
more  and  more  ground  for  it,  in  proportion  as  our  ecclesi- 
astical organization  shall  be  operative  over  the  American 
territory,  that  the  authority  and  the  deliberations  of  the 
General  Convention  should  be  limited  to  matters  essential 
to  the  keeping  of  us  together  as  one  body,  and  requiring 
agreement  with  a  view  to  that  end.     All  enlargement  of  the 
jurisdiction  endangers  controversy,  and  of  course  division, 
in  control  over  a  theological  seminary,  contemplated  by  the 
Church  at  large,  as  the  nursery  for  her  ministry,  there  is 
much  room  for  difference  of  opinion,  and  for  local  jealousies. 
The  complexion  of  the  theology  taught,  in  reference  to  sub- 
jects   on    which    there    may    be   considerable   diversity  oi 
opinion  among  ourselves,  the  choice  of  professors,  with  ac- 
commodation to  such  difference;  the  suflficiency  of  the  jiro- 
fessors,    in   their    respective    branches;    and   other   points 
which  might  be  mentioned,  may  be  sources  of  animosity 
pervading  our  communion.     Even  the  branch  of  it  from 


238  Note  to  page  47. 

which  a  vacant  professorship  should  be  filled,  may  suine- 
limes  occasion  embarrassment.  In  the  civil  concerns  of 
our  country,  the  president  of  the  L  nited  States,  and  the 
governor  of  every  state,  has  to  consider  not  merely  who  is 
the  most  proper  man  to  fill  a  vacant  office,  but  also  what  dis- 
trict is  to  be  gratified  at  the  time.  To  suppose  that  the  same 
circumstance  would  have  no  bearing  on  our  religious  policy, 
is  more  tlian  is  warranted  by  our  knowledge  of  human  nature. 

2dly.  There  will  be  required  what  would  else  be  unne- 
cessary calls  for  the  assembling  of  the  General  Convention. 
For  although  there  may  be  trustees,  with  considerable 
powers  for  the  management  of  the  seminary,  it  can  hardly 
happen,  but  that  exigencies  will  arise,  in  which  they  will 
hesitate  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  acting.  It  is  a  great 
injury  to  the  essential  duties  of  the  ministry,  to  be  unneces- 
sarily calling  the  ministers  from  their  respective  spheres  of 
action — setting  aside  the  expense  incurred.  We  esteem 
it  an  advantage  in  our  Church,  that  judicial  concerns,  con- 
ducted in  other  societies  by  legislative  bodies,  are  acted  on 
by  us  in  ways  which  do  not  require  their  being  brought  into 
assemblies  of  that  description.  Why  should  we  surrender 
the  resulting  benefit,  of  there  being  very  seldom  need  for 
the  call  of  a  special  convention?  Perhaps  in  time,  and 
after  an  extension  of  territory  within  our  connexion,  it  may 
be  thought  sufficient  to  assemble  statedly  once  in  every  five 
years,  instead  of  triennialiy,  as  at  present.* 

3dly.  The  jurisdiction  over  the  seminary  must  be  partial 
and  unfair,  in  respect  to  the  comparative  influence  of  the 
different  sections  of  our  Church.  It  is  not  here  proposed 
to  lay  the  chief  stress  on  the  inequality  of  our  representa- 
tion, and  its  being  out  of  all  j)ro{)ortion  to  our  respective 
population.  When  our  Church  was  organized,  it  would 
have   been  hopeless  to  have  proposed  any  other  scheme; 


*  The  frequency  of  ecclesiastical  synods  and  councils,  for  purposes  not  touching 
the  essentials  of  the  Christian  faith,  was  one  of  the  causes  which  produced  the 
domination  of  the  (church  of  Rome.  In  the  fourth  century,  such  assemblies  were 
multiplied:  and  often  for  the  determining  on  questions  which  were  more  in  the 
province  of  metaphysics  tiian  in  that  of  religion.  What  added  to  the  evil,  was 
that  the  emperors  defrayed  the  expenses  of  the  travelling  of  the  members.  At 
l;ist,  the  burden  of  the  expense  and  of  the  waste  of  time  became  too  great;  ami 
then,  controversies  were  referred  to  the  bishops  of  tlie  four  prmcipMl  sees;  and 
finally,  it  became  still  more  convenient  to  bring  all  within  the  vortex  of  the  papacy^ 
Thi.s,  or  endless  division,  wa.s  necessarily  the  alternative.  Tlie  former  will  not 
happen  in  our  improved  state  of  society,  and  with  experience  of  the  past.  But 
the  latter,  if  ther(!  should  be  very  frequent  conventions,  extending  their  jiirisdictiou 
over  concerns  which  may  be  left  to  local  determination,  will  probably  proceed 
iadefmitely  and  without  end. 


Note  to  page  47.  tW 

and  whether  It  can  hereafter  be  made  co!iA)rmablo  to  exist- 
injff  weif^ht  of  munbers,  as  in  the  civil  line  by  the  fe<iernl 
constitution  of  1788,  must  be  left  to  time  to  determine. 
The  difficulty  now  contemplated  is  of  a  different  nature,  is 
an  immense  ag;;Travation  of  the  other,  and  requires  the 
bringing  of  the  following  circumstances  under  view. 

The  establishment  of  the  General  Seminary  recognized 
the  possible  instituting  of  seminaries  supported  by  local  in- 
terest. It  was  well  that  this  matter  should  be  distinctly 
understood,  although  there  was  no  absolute  necessity  for 
any  declaration  to  the  effect  ;  for  it  is  a  good  civil  maxim, 
that  liberty  is  to  be  presumed  where  restraint  cannot  be 
shown ;  and  it  is  an  unerring  luaxim  of  scrij)ture,  that 
"  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression."  Be- 
sides, can  it  be  supposed  that  the  General  Convention,  pos- 
sessing an  authority  as  it  were  of  yesterda)^  and  under  the 
necessity  of  considering  its  proceedings  with  the  utmost 
caution,  and  witii  tenderness  to  the  habits  and  the  preju- 
dices of  a  peoj)le  not  long  accustomed  to  look  up  to  them 
for  rules  of  conduct,  would  have  wished  to  assume  an  au- 
thority, not  yet  exercised  by  any  large  communion  over  its 
whole  range  of  country?  The  Church  of  England,  con- 
ceives of  herself  as  deeply  interested  in  the  two  universities 
of  that  kingdom  ;  but  when  did  she  affect  the  government 
of  them  ?  In  this  country,  certain  societies  have  recently 
given  the  weight  of  aggregate  sanctions,  to  seminaries  of 
their  immediate  creation  :  but  although  much  longer  exer- 
cised and  obeyed  in  ecclesiastical  legislation,  they  have  not 
ventured  on  the  strong  measure  of  disallowing  seminaries 
partially  instituted  and  patronized. 

Accordingly,  there  must  have  been  left  room  for  local 
seminaries  within  our  communion.  Let  there,  then,  be 
remarked  the  effect  of  this  on  our  concerns  :  an  effect,  dis- 
proportioned  to  any  obtaining  in  other  societies,  which  have 
both  species  of  seminary  within  their  bounds. 

At  the  time  of  instituting  our  General  Seminary,  there 
were  avowed  the  designs  of  two  local  seminaries  ;  and  how 
many  more  of  them  may  become  instituted,  we  know  not. 
It  is  to  be  expected,  that  they  will  principally  engross  the 
pecuniary  aids  of  the  districts  in  which  they  are  respectively 
seated.  Considering  the  consequent  rivalship,  and  perhaps 
hostility,  is  it  reasonable,  that  such  districts  should  have 
an  equal  share  of  control  over  the  General  Seminary,  with 
other  districts  by  which  it  will  be  supported  ?  Certainly, 
it  is  not,  independently  on  the  inequality  of  our  representa- 


240  Noie  to  page  47. 

tion.     How  great  then  will  be  the  disparity,  from  the  two" 
causes  ill  combination  ! 

4tlily.  It  has  been  not  nncommon,  that  a  young  man  within 
our  communion,  directing  his  views  to  the  ministry,  has 
been  supported  under  tlie  paternal  roof,  when  it  would  have 
been  difficult,  or  even  impossible,  to  provide  for  him  in  a 
distant  part  of  the  union,  and  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the 
many  journeys  which  it  would  have  required. 

othly.  There  may  be  perceived  a  difficulty,  in  the  mass 
of  proj)erty  necessary  to  sustain  a  seminary  on  the  contem- 
plated plan;  a  difficulty  consisting  not  only  in  raising  it,  but 
in  rendering  it  so  productive,  and  at  the  same  time  so  secure, 
as  to  ensure  the  support  of  a  collegiate  body  of  professors. 
In  England,  no  provision  for  literary  purposes  is  thought 
stable,  unless  vested  in  real  property,  lot  out  from  time  to 
time,  on  leases  for  years.  The  circumstances  of  this  coun- 
try are  sodifterent,  that  no  one  thinks  of  getting  from  land, 
rent  bearing  a  tolerable  ratio  to  its  capital,  or  of  guarding 
the  premises  from  deterioration,  unless  by  a  strictness  of 
personal  oversight,  not  to  be  expected  of  a  corporation. 
To  pecuniary  capital,  there  are  two  objections — the  ease 
with  which  any  portion  of  it  may  be  called  in,  because  of 
some  pressing  exigency,  or  some  favourite  object,  and — the 
being  lial)le  to  be  reduced  or  annihilated  by  any  of  the  na- 
tional events,  which  are  thought  to  justify  the  issuing  of  an 
abundance  of  paper  currency,  occasioning  its  depreciation. 

Perhaps  it  may  seem,  that  these  possible  evils  arc  not 
confined  to  the  general  school,  and  must  even  be  increased 
by  there  being  several  of  the  local.  To  obviate  the  sug- 
gestion, there  shall  be  drawn  an  outline  of  the  plan  proposed 
for  the  latter. 

Although  no  diocese  would  be  debarred  from  instituting  a 
seminary  under  its  own  ecclesiastical  superintendence;  it  is 
not  probable,  that  the  privilege  would  be  exercised  in  more 
than  in  three  or  four  instances.  In  each,  a  single  professor 
would  be  sufficient;  an  acquaintance  with  every  branch  of 
theology  not  being  too  much  to  be  found  in  one  man  of  ta- 
lents. In  each  of  the  two  universities  of  England,  there 
are  only  two  professors  of  divinity,  and  each  of  the  profes- 
sors has  his  distinct  pupils.  It  is  here  understood,  that  the 
principal  labour  of  the  professor  would  be  the  daily  exami- 
nation of  the  pupils,  in  the  books  of  which  he  would  enjoin 
the  reading.  If  there  should  be  occasional  lectures,  they 
may  be  few,  and  for  the  purpose  of  inviting  general  atten- 
tion.    In  or  near  any  of  our  cities,  extraneous  provision  may 


Note  to  page  47.  241 

be  made  for  the  study  of  Hebrew,  and  for  other  coincident 
purposes. 

Such  a  school  would  call  forth  all  the  energies  of  the 
diocese  in  wliich  it  would  be  seated,  and  probably  of  any 
neighbouring  dioceses,  having  no  prospects  of  seminaries  of 
their  own.  A  fund  for  its  support  would  the  more  easily 
be  created,  and  the  more  vigilatitly  managed;  and,  until 
the  obtaining  of  a  sufficiency,  a  partial  support  might  be 
annexed  to  a  parochial  cure.  If  the  idea  should  occur  of 
there  being  rival  and  even  hostile  seminaries,  the  answer 
is,  that  simple  rivalship  is  attentled  by  advantages,  as  in 
the  instances  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  in  England.  Hos- 
tility would  be  an  evil ;  but  may  as  easily  happen  between 
professors  in  the  same  seminary:  in  which  case  the  evil 
would  be  more  extensive,  and  productive  of  inore  passion 
and  provocation. 

It  may  be  pleaded  in  favour  of  a  general  seminary,  that 
the  different  departments  will  produce  a  greater  mass  of 
learning  in  the  different  professors,  in  consequence  of  the 
devotion  of  each  professor  to  his  proper  branch.  But  this 
has  the  counterbalancing  disadvantage,  in  the  danger  of 
each  professor's  extending  of  the  claims  of  hi?  department 
too  far  to  be  consistent  with  the  necessary  limits  of  a  theo- 
logical course.  Doubtless,  as  well  in  a  theological  as  in  a 
j)hilosophical  lectureship,  the  principles  of  the  professed 
branch  should  be  fidly  tauglit  :  but  it  becomes  a  matter  of 
prudence,  to  draw  the  line  between  this  object,  and  the 
knowledge  which  it  should  be  left  to  subsequent  reading  to 
acquire.  Besides,  if  a  professor  should  possess  a  special 
aptitude  for  a  particular  subdivision  of  the  whole  subject  to 
be  taught,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  may  not  improve  his 
talent  and  gratify  his  taste,  consistently  with  due  attention 
to  the  other  subdivisions,  in  which  he  ought  not,  even  if  he 
were  no  professor,  to  be  imperfectly  informed. 

It  has  been  supposed  an  advantage  in  a  single  seminary, 
that  the  pupils  will  be  sent  out  with  similar  views,  on  points 
concerning  which  some  shades  of  difference  are  found 
among  Episcopalians.  This  is  problematical;  and,  on  the 
contrary,  it  may  easily  happen,  that  diversity  shall  be  gen- 
dered by  shades  of  difference  among  the  professors.  If,  for 
the  avoiding  of  this,  there  should  be  a  strict  and  jealous 
scrutiny  into  the  faith  of  those  proposed  for  professorships, 
there  will  be  an  outcry  against  the  favourers  of  the  dominant 
opinion;  and  it  will  be  well,  if  there  be  not  some  colour  of 
the  charge  of  persecution.     In  seminaries  of  other  religious 

31 


243  Nuie  lo  page  4T. 

societies,  the  difTiTenoes  9ubsi.stir)i»  amoiir?  ihem  have  ir;^ 
truded  into  their  tlieological  seminaries,  allliongh,  on  the 
litij2:ated  points,  the  professors  have  been  of  one  mind. 

There  may  he  apprehended  the  rise  of  a  local  seminary> 
ill  which  the  instruction  shall  be  such,  as  we  may  suppose 
not  the  best  calculated  to  make  the  most  of  the  natural 
talents  of  the  stutlenls,-  May  there  not  be  the  same  disad- 
vantage to  them,  under  the  guidance  of  clergymen  not  ap- 
pointed to  tlie  employment  of  preparing  young  men  for  the 
ministry,  yet  not  forbidden  to  be  so  occupied  by  any  exist- 
ing regulation,  or  by  any  that  can  reasonably  be  made? 
The  only  remedy  for  both  of  these  evils,  must  be  in  the 
reputation  of  our  authorized  schools  ;  which  should  be  sucii, 
as  that  young  men  shall  feel  it  to  be  a  privation,  not  to  have 
been  students  in  them  ;  an  effect  to  be  produced,  not  by  any 
possible  regulation,  but  by  the  influence  of  opinion. 

Of  all  the  business  which  has  come  before  our  General 
Conventions,  the  branch  of  it  which  related  to  a  missionary 
society,  was  the  most  mismanaged.  That  in  the  hurry  of 
the  last  day  of  the  session,  there  should  have  been  oversights, 
v/as  not  so  wonderful,  as  that  the  most  palpable  should  be 
made  by  gentlemen,  with  whom  the  subject  had  been  con- 
templated for  some  months  before,  and  who  have  unfortu- 
nately brought  the  whole  scheme  under  what  the  author 
thinks  a  mistaken  suspicion;  of  its  being  an  intended  en- 
gine against  the  institutions  of  our  Church.  There  were 
these  two  supposed  grounds  of  the  suspicion.  Although 
tJie  constitution  provided,  that  the  trustees  should  be  chosen 
by  the  convention,  it  was  so  managed,  that  the  bishops  had 
no  share  in  the  choice.  They  were  also  made  the  president 
and  the  vice-presidents  of  a  society  existing  in  idea  only^ 
and  composed  of  all  the  contributors,  who  could  never  be 
constitutionally  assembled  ;  while  in  the  efficient  body,  that 
of  the  trustees,  there  was  no  provision  for  the  presidency 
or  even  the  membership  of  a  bishop;  and  no  such  person, 
if  permitted  to  be  present,  could  claim  a  right  to  vote  or  to 
speak  in  their  proceedings. 

When  the  trustees,  so  imperfectly  appointed,  assembled 
on  the  business,  they  saw  the  difficulties  with  which  they 
were  clogged ;  and  that  a  society  so  constituted,  would  not 
receive  the  support  of  the  Church  generally.  Nevertheless,, 
being  aware  of  the  responsibility  attached  to  the  fall  of  the 
design,  they  devised  ways  in  which,  with  the  advice  of  the 
major  number  of  the  bishops,  they  consented  to  give  a  be- 
ginning, to  the  entrrprize  ;  looking, to  the  next  conventionv 


Nuie  JVio  puj^c  i^.  243 

for  tljc  sanctioning  of  their  doings,  and  for  the  supply. of 
the  manifest  defects.  Tliis  sanction  was  not  obtained,  and 
accordingly  there  has  been  a  suspension  of  the  scheme. 
The  author  attended  all  the  meetings  of  the  trustees,  and 
bears  witness  at  once  to  their  zeal  for  the  object,  and  to 
their  concern  for  the  order  and  good  government  of  the 
Church. 


U.  Page  48.     Of  ike  Convention  in  1821. 

The  thanks  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
were  voted  to  Bishop  Kemp  for  his  sermon  :  but  this  was 
afterward  reconsidered,  and  the  thanks  withdrawn.  N@ 
objection  to  the  sermon  was  offered  ;  but  it  was  recollected, 
that  at  the  last  General  Conven>tion  there  had  been  a 
resolve  against  such  a  notice  of  any  conventional  sermon. 
The  matter  was  considerably  agitated,  but  the  former  re- 
solve was  persevered  in.  In  the  House  of  Bishops  the 
thanks  were  voted,  and  a  copy  of  the  sermon  was  requested 
for  publication. 

W.  Page  49. 

The  opposition  to  the  scheme  was  principally  from  the 
gentlemen  of  Virginia:  and  it  was  thought  extraordinary, 
that  having  heretofore  avoided  the  taking  of  any  interest 
in  the  General  Seminary,  they  should  now  manifest  so  much 
zeal  on  the  question  of  its  final  location.  They  avowed 
their  motive,  which  was,  the  ap[>rehension  of  an  undue 
ascendency  of  the  diocese  of  New- York.  But  it  was  pro- 
perly argued  on  the  other  side,  that  this  was  guarded  against 
by  the  provisions  made,  relative  to  the  future  increase  of 
the  number  of  trustees.  At  present,  the  diocese  of  New- 
York  will  have  nearly  half  the  namber :  but  this  is  owing 
partly  to  the  legacy,  and  the  earlier  date  of  measures  begun 
in  that  quarter  for  the  endowing  of  a  seminary.  In  addition 
it  is  notorious,  that  solicitations  for  the  General  Seminary 
in  the  other  states  have  been  suspended  by  the  circumstance 
of  the  bequest,  and  by  the  great  variety  of  opinion  which 
has  existed,  as  to  the  measures  to  be  pursued  in  conse- 
quence. The  proper  preventive  of  the  undue  ascendency 
^f  New-York,  if  it  be  supposed  to  be  fraught  with  danger 
,to  the  Church,  will  be  the  bestowing  of  plentiful  contribu- 


244  Nuie  X  to  page  49. 

tions  in  the  other  slates  :  and  to  this  there  is  great  encour:^ 
agement  in  the  consideration,  that  in  future,  while,  in  tlie 
said  state,  it  will  require  $  10,000  to  entitle  to  an  additional 
trustee,  8  2,000  will  be  sufficient  elsewhere. 

The  adopted  plan  had  the  entire  consent  of  the  writer 
of  these  remarks;  notwithstanding  his  reasons  heretofore 
given  for  the  diocesan,  in  preference  of  the  general  scheme. 
As  is  recorded  in  the  remarks  on  the  proceedings  of  the 
last  convention,  he  had  sacrificed  his  peculiar  sense  of  the 
subject,  to  that  of  the  Church  generally,  not  without  fore- 
bodings of  tliere  being  a  door  opened  to  litigation  and  to 
disunion.  The  prospect  of  this  seems  to  him  to  have  ma- 
terially lessened.  Still,  the  record  of  his  former  objections, 
if  it  should  hereafter  happen  to  be  known,  may  have  the 
good  effect  of  being  a  warning  against  the  apprehended 
danger. 

X.  Page  49. 

There  was  but  one  particular  in  the  scheme,  which 
created  diversity  of  opinion  between  the  two  houses ;  and 
the  diversity  was  owing  to  the  not  perceiving  of  the  matter 
at  issue  in  all  its  bearings.  According  to  the  proposal  of 
the  bishops,  the  meeting  of  the  managers  was  to  be  annual ; 
at  which,  it  was  thought,  executive  measures  might  be  put 
in  a  train,  which  needed  not  to  require  re-consideration 
within  the  time  prescribed.  In  the  other  house  it  was  re- 
ferred to  a  committee,  who  proposed  quarterly  meetings, 
and  a  correspondent  amendment  was  sent  in  to  the  bishops. 
They  persisted  in  their  proposal,  and  the  aniendment  was 
withdrawn. 

The  difference  was  of  more  importance  than  may  at  first 
appear.  The  bishops  residing  in  the  nearer  states,  were 
willing  to  attend  once  a  year,  but  not  at  the  risk  of  quar- 
tci  !y  deviations  from  what  might  be  then  enacted ;  and  for 
the  preventing  of  these,  they  could  not  leave  their  dioceses 
so  often  as  was  proposed.  It  needs  not  be  concealed,  that 
there  existed  a  jealousy,  not  without  cause,  of  some  gentle- 
men in  different  states,  who  might  wish  to  make  the  design 
hostile  to  the  peculiar  institutions  of  our  Church ;  and  hence 
the  desire  of  securing  such  an  annual  assembly,  as  may  de- 
feat the  attempt,  if  made. 


Note  Y  to  page  49.  24.5 


Y.  Page  49. 

The  history  of  the  rubric  is  this.  In  the  Enghsh  book, 
after  the  ante-communion  service,  it  is  immediately  said — 
"  here  follows  the  sermon."  As,  in  churches  in  our  cities, 
the  service  is  often  used,  without  either  sermon  or  commu- 
nion, there  seemed  wanting  a  direction  to  justify  the  minis- 
ter in  proceeding  to  the  blessing.  This  is  the  plain  sense 
of  the  words.  In  the  case  of  there  being  either  sermon 
or  communion,  the  places  of  their  being  introduced  are  pre- 
cisely noted,  if  there  be  neither,  the  minister,  if  disposed 
to  do  nothing  without  rubrical  direction,  might  be  put  to  a 
stand  ;  and  to  prevent  this,  was  the  design. 

But  the  notion  has  been  lately  taken  up,  that  in  the  use 
of  the  conjunction  "  if,"  the  absence  of  the  condition  dis- 
penses with  the  command.  This  is  not  always  the  case. 
On  the  contrary,  if  there  be  a  prior  command  of  greater 
extent,  the  defect  of  the  condition  has  no  further  effect  than 
on  the  command  appended  to  it.  The  matter  may  be  illus- 
trated thus.  The  executive  issues  a  command  to  a  proper 
officer,  first,  to  perform  a  certain  service  at  the  place  of  the 
delivery  of  the  command ;  then,  to  proceed  to  a  second  place, 
where  another  service  is  to  be  performed;  and  finally,  to  go 
on  to  a  third  place,  more  distant,  where  also  there  is  to  be 
a  specified  act  of  duty.  But  a  doubt  occurs,  whether,  on 
his  arrival  at  the  second  place,  some  circumstance  may  not 
hinder  the  performance  of  the  intended  service.  On  this 
a  second  command  issues,  that  "  if"  any  such  circum- 
stance should  occur,  the  officer  shall  proceed  to  the  end  of 
his  destination,  and  to  the  act  to  be  there  done.  How  irre- 
levant would  it  be,  on  the  non-concurrence  of  the  appre- 
hended circumstance,  to  say  that  the  command  for  the  first 
service  is  superseded! 

The  matter  at  issue  is  analagous  to  what  has  been  sup- 
posed. If  there  be  a  sermon,  it  is  positively  directed  to 
follow  the  ante-communion  service.  If  there  be  no  sermon, 
but  the  communion,  the  latter  is  to  follow  in  like  manner ; 
and  the  "  if"  has  no  force,  except  in  the  event  of  there 
being  neither  sermon  nor  communion. 

These  remarks  are  justified  by  Dr.  Johnson's  interpreta- 
tion of  the  conjunctive  particle,  for  which  he  substitutes— 
''  suppose  It  to  be  so"—"  whether  or  no,"  and—"  allowing 
that."  ^ 

The  rubric  was  made  at  the  review  in  17S9,  and  no  cler- 


246  Note  Z  lu  pa^re  49, 

-jryrnan,  then  j)rcscnt,  is  known  to  have  taken  occasion  fv» 
tlrop  the  ante-communion  service;  which  is  very  extraordi- 
nary, if  this,  as  must  be  supposed  to  have  been  the  case, 
was  the  wish  of  the  major  number  present. 

The  contrary  interpretation,  is  a  device  started  within 
these  few  years,  and  it  goes  to  render  ahnost  superfluous 
the  whole  body  of  the  E[)istles  and  the  Cospels,  especially 
those  for  the  holidays,  when  they  happen  to  fall  on  Sundays. 

It  may  be  questioned,  whether  this  judicious  selection 
had  not  the  effecl,  in  the  middle  ages,  in  preventing  the 
corruptions  of  Christianity  from  being  greater  than  we  find 
them  to  have  been  ;  for  when  it  was  rare  to  find  a  Bible  in 
the  hands  even  of  men  of  education,  these  precious  portions 
of  it  must  have  had  some  effect,  although  in  Latin.  At  the 
reformation,  they  were  retained  by  the  most  resjiectable  of 
the  Protestant  Churches  ;  the  English,  and  the  Lutheran  in 
Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Germany,  and  America  ;  all  which, 
with  the  addition  of  the  American,  continues  the  use  of  them 
to  the  present  day  ;  and  with  so  high  an  esteem  of  them,  that 
in  some  of  those  Churches,  the  preacher  is  expected  to  take 
his  subject  from  this  selection. 

It  is  also  a  weighty  recommendation  of  the  ante-commu- 
nion service,  that  the  weekly  reciting  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, has  been  always  supposed  to  have  a  happy  effect  on 
morals. 

Z.  Page  49. 

The  former  table,  for  thirty-eight  years,  was  calculated 
\>y  the  author  of  these  remarks,  in  17b5.  He  has  had  the 
mortification  to  find,  that  in  four  instances,  his  computations 
were  inaccurate;  but  it  has  been  some  relief  to  him  to  learn, 
from  Wheatlcy  on  the  Common  Prayer,  that  there  is  jire- 
cisely  the  same  number  of  errors  in  what  are  called  the 
sealed  books,  and  arc  the  standard  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. 

The  other  changes  are  as  follows: — 

The  Table  of  the  Rules  for  finding  Easter  has  been 
regulated  by  the  change  from  the  eighteenth  to  the  nine- 
teenth century. 

On  examining  the  Tal)le  of  Easts,  tliere  was  discovered 
an  oversight  of  the  committee,  under  whom  was  printed  the 
book  of  1790,  after  the  review  of  1789;  the  error  l)eing  con- 
tinued in  II.  (lainc's  standard  book  of  1793;  in  contrariety 
as  well  to  the  proposed  book,  as  to  the  English  table.     Tiie 


Note  to  page  50.  247 

error  made  fast  (In3-s  of  the  Sundays  in  Lent,  deviatlno-  fVoui 
the  rule  of  the  Church  in  all  ages,  and  iVom  the  table  of 
Feasts,  which  gives  this  name  to  all  the  Sundays  in  the  year. 
The  error  consisted  in  saying  "  the  season  of  Lent,"  instead 
of  "  the  forty  days  of  Lent ;"  which  words  were  accordingly 
restored. 

In  the  Calendar,  the  column  of  golden  numbers,  from  the 
twenty-first  of  March  to  the  eighteenth  of  April,  was  omitted 
us  useless.  This  rendered  it  unnecessary  to  retain  a  note, 
found  in  the  English  book  under  those  two  months;  which 
had  been  omitted  in  all  our  editions,  owing^as  is  supposed, 
to  the  preparing  of  the  book  of  1790,  from  an  old  English 
book,  edited  before  the  change  of  style  in  1751 ;  for  in  none 
of  these  editions  is  the  note  found. 

The  report  presented  a  list  of  typographical  errors  in  II, 
Gaine's  book,  made  out  with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  William 
Hall,  who  had  edited  the  proposed  book  in  1786. 


A  A.  Page  50.     Of  the  Convention  in  1823. 

The  writer  of  th«  Narrative  and  of  the  Statements  dis- 
charged the  duty  assigned  to  him,  in  regard  to  the  points 
presented  by  Bishop  Chase,  agreeably  to  what  was  con- 
ceived to  be  substantially  the  sense  of  the  bishops. 

The  first  point  was  a  proposal  for  the  appointment  of  an 
order  of  persons  to  teach  in  common  schools;  and  autho- 
rized to  read,  to  pray,^  and  to  catechise  on  Sundays.  To 
this  the  answer  was,  that  if  such  power  should  be  dependent 
on  engagements  to  be  made  from  time  to  time,  there  is 
already  authority  to  the  purpose,  and  often  carried  into  act. 
But,  if  a  permanent  character  should  be  constituted,  it 
would  look  like  an  addition  to  the  number  of  the  orders  of 
the  ministr}^  Secondly,  they  would  be  apt  to  consider  their 
appointment  as  a  stepping-stone  to  further  advancement, 
whatever  pains  might  be  taken  to  caution  them  to  the  con- 
trary. This  has  been  too  often  a  consequence  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  lay  readers,  without  the  designation  of  per- 
manent character.  It  is  a  useful  expedient,  and  not  to  be 
laid  aside  on  that  account,  although  to  be  resorted  to  with 
circumspection.  The  plea  would  be  much  stronger,  on  the 
terms  of  the  proposal.  The  present  objector  has  thought 
it  a  matter  worthy  of  consideration,  whether  it  would  not 
fee  wise  to  ordain  some  deacons,  with  an  understandino-  to. 


248  Note  to  page  50. 

the  effect  stated,  and  with  permission  to  follow  secular 
occupations:  the  service  to  undergo  a  few  corresponding 
alterations.  The  only  discouragement  to  his  mind,  is  the 
danger  now  noticed ;  and  the  apprehension  that  it  might 
tend  to  the  lessening  of  the  literary  cljaracter  of  our  minis- 
try :  it  being  presumable  that  there  would  be  exacted  a  less 
measure  of  literary  attainments  in  deacons  admitted  under 
the  conditions  staled.  Whether  the  good  would  not  pre- 
dominate, and  whether  the  abuse  might  not  be  guarded 
against,  may  admit  of  a  question  :  but  as  to  a  new  order, 
the  opinion  was  decidedly  against  it. 

Tlie  next  point  introduced,  was  that  of  theatrical  enter- 
tainments :  in  respect  to  which,  the  answerer  took  occasion 
to  develope  his  sentiments.  They  are,  that  the  theatre,  as 
it  has  always  been,  and  is  likely  to  be  always  conducted, 
has  a  general  tendency  to  the  corruption  of  morals  :  not 
only  because  of  profane  and  indecent  words  and  sentiments 
in  some  plays,  but  because  vice  is  often  insidiously  set  off 
to  advantage,  by  its  being  associated  with  agreeable  and 
even  estimable  qualities.  Still,  we  cannot  affirm  that  there 
is  sin  in  the  introducing  of  fictitious  characters,  for  a 
favourable  display  of  sentiments  strictly  moral  and  instruc- 
tive: for  whicli  reason,  it  would  seem  improper  in  a  cler- 
gyman, as  was  the  object  of  the  proposal,  to  repel  from  the 
communion,  for  being  present  at  a  play,  not  containing  any 
thing  contrary  to  religion  or  to  morals.  If  it  should  be 
urged,  that  the  stage  is  sometimes  so  abused  as  has  been 
admitted,  it  is  an  argument  which  may  be  transferred  to 
the  pul|)it ;  because  of  some  discourses  from  it  very  dan- 
gerous to  the  consciences  of  the  hearers  ;  if  not  in  the 
same  respects,  yet  in  some  other.  If  a  communicant  should 
knowingly  be  present  at  an  exhibition  countenancing  vice, 
it  is  another  matter,  and  might  justly  be  made  a  ground  of 
exclusion.  On  this  subject.  Bishop  Chase  was  referred  to 
the  sense  of  the  bishops,  recorded  on  the  journal  of  1817- 

A  remaining  point,  was  the  ])ressing  of  a  requisition, 
that  the  lay  members  of  conventions  should  be  none  other 
than  communicants.  The  answer  to  this,  was  the  decided 
opinion,  that  none  but  communicants  should  be  sent :  but 
whether  it  would  not  be  too  strong  an  act  of  government, 
and  may  not  best  be  left  to  advice  and  persuasion,  and  of 
even  these  to  be  governed  by  fitness  of  character  in  other 
respects,  may  be  made  a  question.  When  we  organized 
our  Church,  the  proposal  of  such  a  measure  would  have 
stopped  us  at  the  threshold.     Whether  we  are  now  ripe 


Notes  to  page  50.  24^' 

for  it,  should  be  well  considered  before  the  making  of  the 
attempt.  One  great  discouragement,  is  the  direction  given 
to  the  public  mind,  by  the  use  made  of  the  same  test  in 
England.  Among  us,  it  has  been  gone  into  in  one  diocese 
only,  and  was  subsequently  abandoned.  Should  any  diocese 
again  undertake  the  matter,  they  would  seem  to  be  com- 
petent. These  were  the  answers  made  to  Bishop  Chase : 
and  the  responsibility  in  which  it  involved  the  penman  of 
them,  induces  to  the  present  record. 

BB.  Page  50. 

Among  the  documents  delivered  by  the  writer  of  this,  to 
be  deposited  among  the  materials  for  a  future  history,  was 
a  body  of  transcripts  from  the  archives  of  the  diocese  of 
liOndon,  made  by  Dr.  Alexander  Murray  ;  and  given  into 
the  hands  of  the  writer.  The  said  Dr.  Murray  had  been 
an  officiating  clergyman  in  the  province  of  Pennsylvania 
before  the  revolutionary  war,  and  in  the  service  of  the 
society  for  the  Propagating  of  the  Gospel.  He  made  the 
transcripts,  with  the  view  to  their  being  of  service  to  those 
who  were  coming  to  England  for  consecration.  They  were 
of  no  service,  in  reference  to  that  object;  but  Dr.  Murray 
liaving  subsequently  returned  to  this  country,  where  he 
died,  the  transcripts  were  delivered  into  the  hands  which 
have  now  deposited  them  in  the  conventional  collection. 
The  preserving  of  them  may  contribute  to  the  doing  of 
justice  to  those  English  bishops,  who  exerted  themselves 
for  the  extending  of  Episcopacy  to  the  colonies;  and  may 
also  show,  that  the  neglect  of  it  was  owing  to  the  indiffer- 
ence of  statesmen,  not  aware  of  the  importance  of  the  sub- 
ject to  governmental  views;  and  doubtless  comprehending 
(what  there  has  been  given  reason  to  believe  in  the  Memoirs,) 
apprehended  danger  of  offence  taken  by  the  dissenters; 
and  the  consequent  decline  of  their  support,  in  elections  to 
seats  in  parliament. 

CC.  Page  50. 

The  canon  was  intended  for  any  case  of  insufficiency  of 
a  candidate,  in  classical  and  scientific  literature ;  and  with 
the  view  of  arresting  him  at  an  early  period  of  his  intended 
devotion  to  the  ministry ;  and  to  prevent  disappointment, 
after  considerable  time  spent  in  theological  study. 

32 


200  Note.^  to  page  5 1 . 


DD.  Piige  51. 

Tlie  report  of  the  society  shows  too  clearly  that  tli?' 
executive  committeo  have  not  been  so  supported,  as  an 
establisliment  by  the  general  authority  of  the  Church  gave 
reason  to  expect.  It  is  true,  tliat  there  have  been  since  in- 
stituted several  diocesan  soeietie?,  which,  of  course,  advant- 
ageously lessen  the  sphere  of  the  operation  of  the  other. 
This,  however,  ought  not  to  prevent  their  aid  to  the  general 
scheme,  in  consideration  of  the  many  states  in  which  their 
fostering  care  is  so  much  needed;  especially,  as  the  known 
existence  of  the  institution  is  a  cause  of  claims,  which,  as 
matters  are,  cannot  be  complied  with. 

EE.  Page  51. 

In  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  there  were 
some  members  from  Virginia,  very  ardent  in  pressing  on 
the  convention  the  concerns  of  the  Colonization  Society. 
It  may  be  perceived  that  tlie  proposal  was  waived,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  rather  of  a  political  than  of  a  religious 
nature.  In  addition  to  this,  there  exists  in  the  community 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  probably  elsev.'here,  a  variety  of  opinion 
on  the  subject;  many  contending  that  the  object  is  not  the 
lessening  of  the  evil  of  slavery,  but  the  getting  rid  of  a  free 
coloured  population.  The  writer  of  this  believes,  that  the 
motives  of  the  men  prominent  in  the  design,  are  precisely 
what  they  profess.  Of  this,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  there  will  be 
gradually  a  general  conviction ;  but  in  the  meantime,  it 
would  be  unwise  to  take  a  part  in  a  controversy  on  a  sub- 
ject  not  within  the  sphere  of  ecclesiastical  legislation. 

FF.  Page  51. 

There  is  a  prevalent  sentiment  in  the  public  mind,  and 
perhaps  is  more  diffused  among  Episcopalians  than  among 
other  denominations,  that  collegiate  education  should  be 
without  regard  to  differences  of  religious  profession.  No 
wish  is  here  cherished,  of  obtruding  on  young  persons  forms 
of  profession  disapproved  of  by  those  who  have  lawful  au- 
thority over  them.  But,  in  a  country  where  every  denomi- 
nation may  take  its  own  course  in  this  matter,  why  should 
there  be  lost  the  opportunity  of  instilling  religious  principle 
during  the  season  in  which  it  is  the  most  likely  to  be  effec- 


"Nule  to  page  52.  251 

Inal?  If  this  is  to  be  done,  it  must  be  in  some  form,  and 
they  who  take  a  broader  ground,  never  act  consistently  with 
what  they  profess.  Those  societies  flourish  most  wiio  are 
aware  of  this,  and  who  therefore  conduct  religious  education 
conformably  with  their  respective  plans  of  doctrine,  of  dis- 
cipline, and  of  worsliip. 


GG.  Page  52.     Of  the  Convention  in  1826. 

Tfie  proposal  was  considered  an  inconsistency  in  them  by 
some,  who,  in  so  judging,  did  not  distinguish  between  their 
sustaining  of  existing  rubrics,  and  the  inference  that  there 
may  be  some  changes  for  the  better — especially  in  this  par- 
ticular. Of  the  morning  service,  the  bishops  were  aware, 
that  it  consisted  of  three  services;  and  this  has  occasioned 
repetitions,  which  otiierwise  would  not  have  been  adtnitted 
by  our  reformers.  Further,  the  bishops  knew  of  com- 
j)laints  of  the  length  of  the  morning  service,  coming  from 
various  portions  of  their  respective  dioceses ;  and  they  had 
witnessed,  with  sorrow,  a  wayward  disposition  in  many  of 
the  clergy,  to  make  such  omissions  as  the  fancies  of  them- 
selves or  of  some  influential  layjnen  might  suggest.  It  was 
thought,  that  by  a  moderate  measure  of  compliance  with 
existing  circumstances,  there  might  be  the  effect  of  giving 
a  check  to  those  extravagances. 

As  for  the  reluctance  to  the  deviating  in  any  instance 
from  the  old  paths,  it  seems  to  have  been  worthy  of  consider- 
ation, that  there  is  an  higher  antiquity  than  that  pleaded. 
Jt  has  been  stated,  that  the  morning  prayer,  and  the  com- 
munion service,  were  designed  for  different  hours  of  the 
day.  Besides,  the  former,  as  at  first  established  and  used, 
was  without  the  initiatory  sentences,  the  exhortation,  the 
confession,  and  the  absolution;  which  is  not  now  noticed, 
as  a  denial  of  the  expediency  of  the  introduction  of  them. 
The  prayer  for  the  king,  that  for  the  rest  of  the  royal  family, 
that  for  the  clergy  and  people,  and  the  two  final  prayers,  were 
not  in  the  morning  service,  until  the  reign  of  Charles  II. 
' — more  than  a  century  after  the  comj^iling  of  the  service; 
the  conclusion  of  it,  until  then,  being  with  the  collect  for 
peace.  At  the  same  period  was  composed  the  "  General 
Thanksgiving,"  ever  since  used  with  morning  and  with 
evening  prayer.  So  was  the  prayer  "  For  all  Conditions 
of  Men,"  to  be  used  only  when  it  is  allowed  to  omit  the 


25:i  NvU  1o  page  rrZ. 

litany.  The  coDimiinioii  service  was  without  the  coiri' 
mandinents;  which  ought  not  to  be  remarked,  without  an 
acknowledgement  of  the  edifying  etiect  of  the  introduction 
of  them  ;  and  wiicn  this  service  was  used  with  the  compre- 
hension of  any  one  of  the  services  of  ordination,  the  prefa- 
tory rubric  did  not,  as  at  present,  require  the  ])recedent 
use  of  the  morning  service.  This  requisition  was  intro- 
duced at  the  aforesaid  period,  and  lias  added  greatly  to  the 
time  occupied  on  the  occasions  referred  to. 

As  for  the  litany,  although  it  was  a  part  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  from  the  beginning,  it  does  not  appear  to 
have  had  an  early  introduction  into  the  use  of  the  morning 
service.  The  first  we  read  of  the  litany,  from  the  beginning 
of  the  reformation,  is  the  command  of  Henry  VIII.  to 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  for  the  translation  of  it  into  the  Eng- 
lish, in  order  to  its  being  understood  by  the  people,  when 
used  in  processions,  for  which  soletnnities  and  the  like,  it 
was  originally  designed  ;  or,  at  least,  it  became  associated 
with  them  at  an  early  period. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  suggested,  that  there  would  be  a  re- 
moval of  all  ditticuUy,  if  there  were  introduced  the  use  of 
the  two  distinct  services  for  morning  prayer  and  for  the 
communion,  at  different  Viours  in  the  first  division  of  the  day. 
But  if  this,  the  original  design  in  England,  was  obliged  so 
generally  and  almost  universally,  to  give  way  to  a  combining 
of  the  two,  notwithstanding  the  demarcation  of  the  parishes, 
and  the  small  distances  around  the  churches  within  which 
their  respective  parishioners  reside  ;  it  would  be  far  more 
difficult  to  be  accomplished  in  America,  where  not  to  men- 
tion the  scattered  population  in  the  country,  even  in  our 
cities,  a  man's  relation  to  a  particular  house  of  worship  is 
not  a  proof  that  he  lives  within  a  mile  of  it ;  and  in  general 
the  greater  number  of  the  worshippers  may  not  be  within 
convenient  walking  distances,  to  be  traversed  six  times  in 
the  day.  Yet  it  is  to  be  wished,  that  in  future,  as  at  pre- 
sent, the  form  of  the  Prayer  Book  nuiy  be  such,  as  to  per- 
mit the  severance  unquestionably  contemplated  by  the 
compilers. 

It  may  be  said — why  not  then  dispense  with  the  ante- 
communion  service,  on  there  being  introduced  a  rubric  to 
the  effect  i*  The  answer  is — better  this,  than  the  leaving 
of  it  on  the  present  footing;  which  tends  to  the  producing 
of  two  different  books  in  substance,  and  eventually  in  form. 
But  it  would  be  far  from  tending  to  edilication,  to  forego 
jt)ie  moral  use  of  a  weekly  recital  of  the  commandmenls, 


Note  to  page  53.  253 

and  the  reading  of  selections  of  scrij)tiire  adapted  to  the 
times  to  which  they  are  assio-iied,  ancl  of  such  early  usf  in 
the  Christian  Church  :  and  this,  for  the  abbreviation  by  one 
half  of  a  quarter  of  an  hour  :  which  is  about  the  average  of 
the  time  spent  in  the  recital  of  that  portion  of  the  service. 

HII.  Page  52. 

Had  there  been  an  accomplishment  of  the  wish  of  the 
"bishops,  the  services  of  the  morning  would  have  been  ab- 
breviated, it  is  thought,  to  desirable  limits.  This  would 
have  been  conformable  to  the  purpose,  for  which  litanies 
were  originally  framed.  In  the  English  Church,  the  litany 
stood  in  the  first  book  of  Edward,  after  the  communion 
service,  with  a  rubric  agreeable  to  the  sentiments  hero 
entertained;  and  it  was  placed  between  that  service  and 
the  otHce  for  baptism.  In  the  second  book  of  Edward,  it 
took  its  present  station,  with  a  rubric  extending  the  use  of 
it  to  Sundays.     For  these  facts,  see  Wheatley. 

Further;  the  writer  of  this  ought  not  to  be  backward  to 
confess,  that  however  convinced  of  the  propriety  of  the 
worshi[)  of  the  adorable  Redeemer,  as  sanctioned  by  the 
word  of  God,  he  considers  it  as  consentaneous  with  the 
same  high  authority  that  worship  should  be  principally  ad- 
dressed to  the  Father,  through  the  merits  of  the  Son.  All 
of  the  litany,  between  the  first  four  petitions  and  the  Lord's 
Prayer  are  to  the  Son  exclusively.  At  least,  this  is  here 
conceived  to  be  the  correct  opinion,  and  it  is  sanctioned  by 
the  sense  of  the  commentators  on  the  liturgy;  althou"-h 
there  are  some,  who  think  that  the  Father  is  addressed 
through  the  greater  part  of  it,  beginning  at — "  We  sinners 
do  beseech  thee,  &;c."  To  show  the  want  of  consent  in 
this  matter,  it  may  be  proper  to  notice,  that  when  it  was 
discoursed  of  among  the  bishops,  there  appeared  an  oppo- 
sition of  interpretation  on  the  point. 

II.  Page  53. 

It  must  be  acknowledged,  that  after  the  withdrawing  of 
what  the  bishops  had  contemplated  in  regard  to  the  litany, 
the  abbreviations  are  very  inconsiderable.  Yet  it  is  difficult 
to  perceive,  with  what  consistency  the  mere  permission  of 
them  was  argued  against,  by  speakers  who  advocated  in- 
dulgence to  the  much  larger  extent  of  the  omission  of  the 
<ante-conimunion  service;  not  because  they  considered  it  to 


254  Note  to  page  53. 

be  a  true  interpretation  of  the  ruhric — for  tliis  they  une- 
■quivocally  denied  ;  but  on  a  principle  warranting  any  other 
omissions,  wliich  the  agents  are  ready  to  declare  to  be 
reconcilable  to  their  consciences. 

Tn  fact,  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  the 
debate  took  such  a  turn,  as  threatens  to  give  unbounded 
license  to  such  easy  consciences;  and  to  be  operative  on 
those  only  who  hold  themselves  to  be  bound  by  rubrics: 
for  this  was  a  construction  fairly  put  on  the  reasonings  of 
those  who  were  in  the  highest  grade  of  adherence  to  the 
integrity  of  the  service. 

KK.  Page  53. 

To  the  insertion  of  this  prayer,  there  have  been  made 
two  objections:  not  on  the  floor  of  the  house,  but  in  con- 
versations. The  first  is,  that  it  would  add  to  the  sanction 
given  to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  confessedly 
contained  in  the  original  prayer.  But  O!  what  a  purgation 
must  there  be  of  our  articles,  of  our  services,  and  of  our 
homilies,  if  this  prejudice  is  to  be  complied  with!  The 
other  objection,  is  its  not  being  expressed,  that  the  petition 
is  put  up  through  the  merits  of  the  Redeemer.  But  it  is 
the  same  in  this  respect,  with  the  present  prayer.  There 
cannot  be  a  more  evangelical  requisition,  than  that  our 
persons  and  our  devotions  can  claim  acceptance  on  this 
ground  only.  But  it  may  be  questioned,  whether  the  re- 
coo-nition  of  this  truth  constitute  a  necessary  circumstance 
of  every  subdivision  of  a  continued  service.  In  the  prayers 
before  sermons  of  our  brethren  of  other  denominations, 
there  are  divers  subjects,  and  not  such  a  request  in  regard 
to  each  of  them.  The  great  truth  is  usually  recognised  in 
the  conclusion  of  the  prayer  :  and  so  it  is  in  the  progress 
of  ours,  in  various  places.  The  compilers  of  our  liturgy, 
took  the  prayer  in  rpiestion  from  a  father  of  the  fourth 
century.  If  there  be  weight  in  the  objection,  it  ought  to  be 
applied  to  the  dispensing  with  both  of  the  prayers.  We 
put  up  th.>  Lord's  Prayer  without  this  adjunct;  although, 
doubtless,  with  the  in)i)lication  of  it.  In  Acts  iv.  24 — 31, 
there  is  a  prayer,  of  which  the  subject  matter  is  not  asked 
through  the  merits  of  the  Saviour,  although  he  is  recognised 
as  a  worker  of  miracles.  As  to  that  in  chapter  i.  24,  25,  it 
is  addressed  to  the  Saviour  himself. 


Notes  to  pan-e  S3.  255- 


LL,  Page  53. 

.Concerning  the  subject  in  the  Narrative,  it  has  ajjpeared 
^  the  writer  of  these  remarks,  in  regard  to  those  who  have 
pleaded  for  laxity,  that  they  have  uniformly  avoided  notice 
of  the  hinge,  on  which  the  question  of  permitted  deviation 
principally  turns.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  same  is  un- 
rubrical,  and  a  violation  of  the  promises  made  at  ordination  ; 
but,  that  the  interpretation^,  if  acted  on  consistently,  vvmild 
abrogate  the  use  of  all  those  selections  of  collects,  epistles, 
and  gospels,  any  of  which  may  apply  to  days  when  the 
minister  delivers  a  sermon.  This  may  happen  on  any  week 
day,  noted  by  the  calendar  as  a  festival  or  a  fast;  and  actually 
happens  in  every  church,  opened  on  Christmas  day  or  on 
Good  Friday.  The  writer  will  put  a  strong  cese,  existing 
in  his  own  person.  For  many  years  he  has  been  in  the 
habit,  besides  a  sermon  on  Good  Friday,  to  deliver  what 
he  has  called  a  lecture,  on  every  one  of  the  rest  of  the  days 
in  Passion  week,  as  also  on  Easter  Monday  and  Tuesday. 
The  rubric  uses  the  word  "  sermon,"  and  not  the  word 
"  lecture."  What  is  a  sermon  ?  "  It  is  a  discourse,"  say 
the  dictionaries,  (see  Johnson  or  Walker,)  "  delivered  by  a 
divine,  for  the  edification  of  the  people."  It  would  be  a 
subterfuge,  in  any  clergyman,  were  he,  in  order  to  avoid 
what  the  canons  require  on  the  subject  of  sermons,  to  call 
his  discourses  lectures,  for  no  other  reason  than  the  not 
taking  of  a  text,  and  perhaps  the  speaking  from  the  reading 
desk,  instead  of  from  the  pulpit.  Hereafter,  some  clergy- 
man may  deliver,  on  every  day  in  Passion  week,  what  is 
more  customarily  called  a  sermon,  as  is  done  in  many 
churches  in  England.  Such  a  clergyman  would  more  con- 
spicuously commit  a  palpable  violation  of  the  rubric.  Of 
those  who  are  in  the  disuse  of  the  ante-communion  service, 
it  is  not  probable,  that  there  are  many  who  hold  vvorship  on 
the  days  which  have  been  referred  to,  except,  perhaps,  on 
Good  Friday.  But  why  not  be  tolerant  towards  those  of 
their  brethren,  who,  if  they  should  adopt  the  interpretation 
contended  for,  must  abandon  what  they  deem  an  edifying 
improvement  of  those  days  of  humiliation? 

MM.  Page  53. 

It  will  be  pertinent,  in  this  place,  to  relate  an  incident^ 
relative  to  a  matter  which  was  passed  unanimously  by  the 


256  yote  to  page  54. 

bishops,  and  sent  to  the  other  house,  where,  the  turn  taken* 
by  it  dispensed  with  the  inserting  of  the  document  on  the 
journal.  It  consisted  of  various  reasons  in  favour  of  the 
construction  given  by  the  bishops  to  what  some  were  pleased 
to  call  the  dubious  rubric,  in  addition  to  the  reasons  given 
in  the  convention  of  1823,  and  entered  on  their  journal. 
The  additional  reasons  were  handed  in  with  the  proposal 
concerning  the  liturgy,  as  in  its  first  form.  Of  course,  when 
this  was  withdrawn,  as  related  above,  the  other  came  back 
with  it. 

When  the  proposal  concerning  the  liturgy  was  sent  again 
to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  it  was  accom- 
panied, not  as  before,  by  the  two  sets  of  reasons,  but  by 
a  canon,  explanatory  of  what  the  bishops  conceived  to  be 
the  true  sense  of  the  rubric.  In  the  mean  time,  the  rea- 
sons having  been  printed  by  the  order  of  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  they  were  in  the  hands  of  the 
members;  and  the  acceptance  of  the  canon,  together  with 
the  proposal  concerning  the  liturgy,  accomplished  the  object 
for  which  the  reasons  had  been  drawn  up.  But,  as  they  are 
important  towards  an  understanding  of  the  transaction,  they 
are  committed  to  the  Appendix,  No.  34. 

NN.  Page  54. 

Within  the  memory  of  the  author  of  this  work  there  has 
taken  place  a  most  remarkable  change,  in  reference  to  the 
subject  now  noticed.  When  he  was  a  young  man,  and  in 
England,  and  even  when  he  was  there  fifteen  years  af^er, 
he  never,  in  any  church,  heard  other  metrical  singing  than 
what  was  either  from  the  version  of  Sternhold  and  Hop- 
kins, or  from  that  of  Tate  and  Brady.  In  this  country  it 
was  the  same ;  except  on  Christmas  day  and  on  Easter 
Sunday,  when  there  were  the  two  hymns  now  appropriate 
to  those  days:  which  was  strictly  rubrical;  they  being  no 
more  than  passages  of  scripture,  put  into  the  trammels  of 
metre  and  rhyme.  Of  late  years,  in  England,  an  unbounded 
license  has  taken  place  in  this  respect :  and  even  an  arch- 
bishop of  York  has  given  his  sanction  to  a  collection  of 
hymns,  made  by  one  of  his  clergy.  The  like  liberty  has 
crossed  the  ocean  to  this  country,  in  a  degree. 

Let  not  the  remark  be  misconstrued.  The  present  waiter 
has  no  leaning  to  the  theory  of  those  who  consider  all  sing- 
ing, except  of  David's  Psalms,  as  irreverent  and  irreligious. 
On  the  contrary,  he  is  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  for  the 


Notes  to  page  5i.  25^ 

introtliicing  of  some  li^imns,  expressly  recognising  events 
and  truths  peculiar  to  the  New  Testament.  Still,  whether 
it  be  the  eflect  of  mature  judgment  or  that  of  feelings  ex- 
cited during  the  earliest  of  his  years  within  his  recollection, 
he  declares,  that  in  respect  to  the  ordinary  topics  of  prayer, 
of  praise,  and  of  precept,  he  finds  no  compositions  so  much 
tending  to  the  excitement  of  devotion,  as  what  we  have  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms  :  and,  as  they  are  the  effusions  of  in- 
spiration, he  ought  to  be  excused  for  his  reluctance  to 
doubt  of  the  correctness  of  iiis  theoiy. 

As  chairman  of  the  committee,  he  hopes  his  advice  had 
some  effect,  towards  checking  the  multiplicity  deprecated 
by  him,  although  not  to  the  extent  desired.  For  a  more 
full  manifestation  of  his  sentiments  on  the  subject,  he  pre- 
sents a  document,  read  by  him  to  the  committee,  and  now 
to  be  included  in  the  Appendix,  No.  35. 

In  this  concern  there  was  a  course  taken,  whicii,  it  is  to 
be  hoped,  will  be  imitated  in  regard  to  the  liturgy,  in  the 
future  event  of  a  review,  if  this  should  happen.  It  is,  that 
after  a  preparation  of  the  work  by  a  committee,  consisting 
of  members  from  all  the  orders  in  the  Church,  the  convene 
tion  should  have  only  to  stamp  on  it  their  yea  or  their  nay. 
Had  they  gone  into  the  consideration  of  the  sense  of  every 
liymn,  and  of  the  criticisms  which  would  have  been  made  on 
the  phraseology,  the  work  would  have  taken  some  months 
at  the  least.  All  were  sensible,  that  the  time  would  be 
longer  than  they  could  sit  together;  and,  therefore,  the 
dissatisfied  members  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De^ 
puties  proposed  a  continuance  of  the  subject  to  the  nexli 
Triennial  Convention.  It  had  already  been  before  three 
bodies  of  this  description.  The  same  reason  would  apply 
at  the  meeting  of  the  next:  and,  unless  the  principle  should 
be  abandoned,  we  should  have  had  no  addition  to  the 
hymns.  Whether  this  would  have  been  for  the  better  or 
for  the  worse  might  be  uncertain  ;  were  it  not  for  the 
license  now  taken  in  many  places,  because  of  the  want  of 
more. 

OO.  Page  54. 

The  two  canons  not  acted  on,  were  directed  against  very 
great  evils,  calling  for  immediate  remedy.  What  was  pro- 
posed, would  certainly  have  been,  in  substance,  acceptable 
to  the  members  generally  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies.     But,   some  of  the  members   having  proposed 

3a 


2;j8  ?fotes  to  paf^e  5»l. 

ceitaiu  amendmeutii  to  the  lirst  of  the  two  canons;  impa- 
tience to  put  an  end  to  the  session,  cunsed  a  reterence  to 
t-he  committee  on  the  canons,  previously  iippointed  and  t(y 
sit  in  the  lecessi.  The  second  of  the  canons  would  have 
had  a  beneficial  effect  on  the  present  state  of  the  Church 
in  this  diocese.  There  would  liave  been  no  need  of  the 
delay,  but  because  of  the  time  wasied  on  the  business  whicli' 
is  to  follow. 

PP.  Page  54 

There  has  never  been  before  manifested  so  much  jiatienco 
under  tedious  repetition  ofthe  same  sentiments,  in  referenct* 
to  a  point  concerning;  which,  a  considerable  majority  were 
of  oi)inion  from  the  beginning,  that  it  was  foreign  to  the 
purposes  for  which  they  were  assembled.  In  tjiree  previous- 
conventions,  there  had  come  forward  applicants,  with  their 
respective  schemes  relative  to  books ;  and  they  had  beeit 
rejected,  without  examination.  In  the  first  instance,  the- 
bishops  had  sent  to  the  other  house,  and  had  received  their 
thanks  for  it,  a  resolution  interdicting  all  conventional 
deliberations  of  that  description.  This  transaction  is  re- 
corded on  the  journal  of  1814;  and  the  principle  has  been 
acted  on  ever  since,  until  the  present  occasion.  It  is  to  bo 
hoped,  that  the  bad  effects  produced  by  a  deviation  from- 
the  precedent  so  set,  will  prevent  the  like  in  future. 

Although  the  scheme  was  rejected,  tliere  were,  among: 
those  who  were  averse  to  the  reception  of  it,  some  who 
thought  it  good  in  itself,  and  worthy  ofthe  endeavours  of  a 
society,  to  be  instituted  for  the  purpose.  The  writer  of 
this  was  of  a  different  opinion,  for  many  reasons.  His 
principal  reason  was,  that  either  there  would  be  an  addition 
to  the  calls,  of  which  there  are  already  too  many  on  the 
clergy,  to  leave  their  respective  dioceses  and  parishes  for 
the  inanagement  of  the  general  business  of  the  Church  ; 
while,  as  to  the  lay  gentlemen,  we  should  have  no  proba- 
bility, that  they  would  leave  their  occupations  for  the  pur- 
pose. The  business  would  be  at  the  command  of  a  few 
gentlemen,  at  the  central  seat  ofthe  measures  to  be  taken. 
The  writer,  in  consequence  of  much  experience  in  pecuniary 
institutions,  connected  with  religion  and  with  literature,  has 
witnessed  serious  losses  incurred  ;  sometimes  from  neglect^ 
accompanied  by  the  purest  intentions  with  the  most  un- 
guUied  integrity  ;  and  at  other  times,  by  the  application  of 
public  stock  to  private  and  unsuccessful  speculations.     II« 


KoU'S  to  page  oQ.  2S§ 

is  therefore  reluiitant  to  the  onconrai^ement  of  a  phjn,  which 
would  commit  to  such  hazards  the  large  stock  contemplatcjd  : 
when  the  disappointment  of  exiJectatioii  may  hring  indelihie 
iiis;j:racc  on  the  Clmrch. 


Qd.  Page  06.     Of  Ihe  Convention  in  IS29. 

In  the  canons  of  the  Church  in  Tennessee,  it  was  pro- 
rideci,  that  after  a  trial  by  the  constituted  ecclesiastical 
authority,  there  should  be  an  appeal  to  the  diocesan  con- 
vention. Tiiis  was  judged  by  the  bishops  to  be  inconsistent 
witli  Episcopal  governsiient.  The  opinion  was  concurred 
in  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  without  a 
dissentient  voice,  so  far  as  appears. 

KR.  Page  55. 

The  author  of  the  ^aresent  work,  would  have  been  grati- 
*fied  by  the  alterations  in  the  liturgy  proposed  by  the  last 
-convention,  being  convinced  of  the  expediency  of  shortening 
the  Sunday  service  for  the  morning,  consisting,  as  it  does, 
of  services  originally  intended  to  be  distinct,  and  of  utiin- 
tended  repetitions.  He  was  not,  however,  so  much  dissatis- 
fied by  the  rejection  of  the  proposals,  as  by  the  causes  which, 
as  he  conceives,  conducted  to  the  issue  :  causes,  operating 
as  well  with  those  who  objected  on  the  general  ground  of 
dislike  to  innovation,  as  with  others,  who  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  several  proposed  alterations.  The  former  were 
reluctant  to  the  decisive  measure  of  an  authoritative  sup- 
pression of  the  licentiousness  of  generally  omitting  the  ante- 
communion  service,  where  the  omission  of  it  was  owing  to 
what  they  confessed  to  be  a  misconstruction  of  a  rubric. 
The  latter,  it  is  here  believed,  were  averse  to  the  shorten- 
ing of  the  service  in  such  a  way,  as  not  to  leave  any  excuse 
for  omissions  as  individual  discretion  may  suggest.  These 
■opposite  opinions  may  be  considered  as  combining  in  the 
point,  of  there  being  at  last  no  established  uniformity  in  the 
use  of  the  services  of  the  Churcli.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  that 
the  providence  of  God  will  interpose,  for  the  prevention  of 
such  a  result.  To  the  author  of  these  remarks,  the  only 
expedient  seems  to  be,  as  was  suggested  in  a  former  part  of 
•this  work,  the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  of  bishops, 
tiud  other  divines,  for  a  deliberate  review  of  the  Book  of 


260  Note  to  pug;*:  oil. 

Common  Prayer;  their  work,  when  finished,  to  be  laid  be^ 
fore  the  two  houses  of  convention,  and  to  be  by  them  adopted 
or  rejected  witiiout  debate.  This  is  a  course,  the  nearest 
that  circuinstanccs  admit,  to  the  compilation  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  by  the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, in  the  reis^n  of  Edward  YI. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  thought  by  some,  that  on  supposition  of 
the  correctness  of  the  apprehensions  which  have  been  ex- 
pressed, the  present  book,  if  continued  in  what  will  be  called 
its  integrity,  will  be  adhered  to  by  a  proportion  of  the  clergy. 
It  is  not  probable.  There  occur  to  many  of  the  body,  the 
most  correct  in  adherence  to  order,  many  circumstances  in- 
ducing to  abbreviations,  countenanced  by  departure  from 
original  design.  Such  clergymen  will  reconcile  deviations 
to  their  consciences,  by  the  consideration,  that  it  is  unno- 
ticed by  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Church ;  and  thus 
they  will  become  accessory  to  the  result  of  there  being  no 
form  in  practice.  This  inconsistency  is  known  to  have  hap- 
pened with  some  clergymen,  who  have  declared  their  hos- 
tility to  any  alterations  of  the  rubrics. 

SS.  Page  57. 

The  objections  to  the  non-succession  of  an  assistant 
bishop,  may  be  comprehended  under  the  following  heads: — 

1st.  It  was  the  general  course  relative  to  a  co-adjutor  or 
assistant  Episcopacy,  although  there  have  been  some  devia- 
tions from  the  general  practice,  and  although,  even  in  very 
early  times,  some  departures  from  the  practice  have  taken 
place,  of  which  there  was  an  instance  jn  the  person  of 
Gregory  Nazianzen. 

2d.  In  the  circumstances  of  this  Church,  it  would  be  pe^ 
culiarly  unfortunate,  if  the  precedent  should  lead  to  her 
being  encumbered  with  bishops  not  possessed  of  dioceses. 

3cl.  It  would  give  an  opening  to  factious  presbyters,  whose 
ambition  may  prompt  them  to  raise  parties,  with  views  to 
the  diocesan  Episcopacy;  and, 

4th.  That  influential  laymen  may  patronise  this  restric-r 
tion,  with  the  view  of  keeping  the  temporary  bishop  in  sub- 
jection to  their  control. 

There  may  be  proposed  the  (juestion — why  did  not  these 
considerations  weigh  with  the  bishops,  so  as  to  induce  their 
jelusal  to  consecrate? 

The  answer  is, 

1st.  The  convention  of  Virginia,  although  deviating  from 


Note  lu  j)age  57.  261 

«he  original  and  reasonable  practice,  had  to  jilead  the  coun- 
tenance of  some  precedents. 

2d.  From  the  assurances  vvliich  were  given  by  the  depu- 
ties of  the  diocese  interested,  it  was  confidently  believed, 
that  there  would  be  a  correction  of  the  error  at  the  next 
session. 

3d.  That  the  canon  passed  against  the  practice  by  this 
convention,  was  counted  on  as  a  barrier  against  any  further 
recurrence  of  the  evil;  and, 

4th.  That  the  convention  of  Virginia  could,  with  the  less 
reason,  resist  the  canon,  as  they  had  instructed  their  depu- 
ties to  move  in  the  General  Convention,  for  a  regulation  to 
govern  on  the  subject  in  future. 

It  was  known  at  the  time,  that  Bishop  Browneli  had  de- 
termined on  a  visit  to  the  western  states,  and  to  those  south 
of  Georgia,  under  a  mission  from  the  Domestic  and  Foreio-n 
Missionary  Society.  It  is  probable,  that  this  prompted  ttie 
proposal  contained  in  the  Narrative.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
that  the  contemplated  visit  will  contribute  materially  to  the 
object  proposed  by  the  General  Convention.  The  hope  of 
this  result  is  considerably  strengthened  by  what  Bishop 
Ravenscroft  has  accomplished,  in  his  way  from  his  diocese 
to  the  General  Convention.  He  made  a  circuit  throuiih  the 
states  of  Tennessee  and  Kentucky,  v.'hich  not  only  excited 
the  zeal  of  the  scattered  Episcopalians  in  those  states,  but 
contributed  to  the  organizing  of  the  Church  in  each  of 
them. 

There  was  a  singular  coincidence  of  the  assistant  bisliop 
elect  of  the  Church  in  Virginia,  and  that  of  the  assist..nt 
bishop  who  had  been  consecrated  for  Pennsylvania.  In  the 
latter  case,  the  consecration  had  been  strenuously  objected 
to,  on  the  ground,  that  the  convention  of  Pennsylvania 
had  no  right  to  elect  a  successor  to  their  present  bishop, 
while  living.  In  direct  contrariety  to  this  position,  a  Gene- 
ral Convention,  assembled  soon  after,  are  unanimously  of 
opinion,  that  to  choose  an  assistant  bishop,  without  the  in- 
tention of  his  succeeding,  is  an  act  utterly  indefensible. 
During  the  discussions,  the  matter  which  had  been  litigated 
in  Pennsylvania,  was  kept  out  of  view,  and  the  name  of  the 
assistant  bishop  was  not  mentioned.  This  is  evidence,  of 
vyhat  little  account  was  the  opposition  made  to  his  consecra- 
tion, in  the  estimation  of  the  representative  body  of  the 
whole  Church. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  author  of  these  remarks,  that  the 
proceedings  relative  to  the  metre  Psalms  are  unnecessary, 


i^(i'2  .  Note  lo  jJUffc  ai. 

and  fruitful  of  liti;zation.  Such  is  the  diversity,  not  only  of 
judgment  hut  of  taste,  that  he  the  selection  what  it  may, 
there  will  be  complaints  of  the  omission  of  some  passages, 
and  of  what  will  he  thought  the  injudicious  preference  of 
others. 

Still,  there  will  be  urged  tlie  small  proportion  of  the 
Psahiis  in  use.  This  objection  is  easily  met.  The  metre 
Psalms  make  no  part  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
There  may  be  editions  of  the  one,  in  severance  from  the 
other;  or  with  selections  from  it,  at  the  discretion  of  any 
parochial  minister.  Nothing  is  wanting  but  a  moderate 
measure  of  attention,  with  or  without  the  aid  of  consenting 
brethren,  to  a  printer  and  to  a  binder.  Dilicrent  selections 
will  be  made  for  different  congregations,  without  just  cause 
of  offence.  The  selections  will  be  submitted  to  such  choice 
as  may  be  prompted  by  judgment  or  by  caj)rice,  to  be  bound 
in  the  same  covers  with  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ;  ami 
they  who  do  not  like  any  of  them,  may  attach  to  the  book 
the  whole  body  of  the  Psalms  in  metre- 


TT.  Page  CI.     Of  the  Cojivention  in  1832. 

On  the  reading  of  the  journal,  without  the  knowledge  of 
an  exterior  cause  having  a  bearing  on  the  deliberations  of 
the  body,  it  cannot  but  seem,  that  much  time  was  unneces- 
«arily  spent  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Dcj)utics; 
owing  to  the  blending  of  two  subjects,  one  of  which  might 
properly  have  been  dispensed  with.  Whether  a  bishop 
have  a  right  to  resign  his  charge  at  discretion  ;  and  when 
the  diocese  being  abandoned,  whether  it  be  not  a  duty  to 
supply  the  vacancy;  are  questions,  resolveable  on  different 
grounds.  It  was  not  from  the  being  insen>:ible  of  the  dif- 
ference, that  so  much  zeal  and  so  much  argument  were 
lavished  on  the  affirmative  of  the  first  of  these  questions. 
The  effect  was  the  result  of  o})posite  opinions  held  relatively 
to  an  event  of  thirty-three  years  standing.  There  has  been 
recorded  in  the  "Memoirs,"  that  in  September,  1800,  the 
three  bishops,  tiien  composing  a  house,  denied  the  right  of 
Bishop  Provoost  to  resign  ;  and  consecrated  Bishop  Benja- 
min 3Ioore,  only  as  his  assistant  and  successor.  It  lias  also 
been  noticed,  that  some  years  after,  on  the  occinrence  oi' 
an  unhappy  controversy  in  the  diocese  of  New-Vork,  this 
matter  came  under  the  consideration  of  the  diocesan  con- 


No'es  to  pa'^e  CI.  ^(53 

tention  ;  which  refused  to  acknowledge  any  other  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  than  lliat  ol'  Bishop  Moore.  Althouffli  iho 
tjuestion,  as  rej,^ards  the  circumstances  which  or!<iinated  \i, 
has  ceased  to  be  interesting;  yet  the  occurrence  of  another 
professed  resignation,  brought  again  into  view  the  diversity 
f>f  sentiment,  which  had  so  long  ceased  to  cause  any 
disturbance  to  the  Church. 

Although,  in  the  late  convention,  much  time  was  lost  in 
the  consequent  discussion;  yet  it  will  result  in  benefit  to 
the  Church,  if  the  thirty-s€cond  canon,  which  was  tlie  fruit 
of  it,  should  be  efficient  in  guarding  against  resignations. 
Hot  induced  by  exterior  necessity,  or  by  some  other  extra- 
ordinary consideration;  and  not  resting  altogether  on  the 
will  of  the  party,  for  the  consummating  of  the  act.  Tho 
threatened  danger  is  not  only  that  of  giving  occasion  to 
faction  excited  and  conducted  by  clerical  ambition  ;  and 
that  of  coveting  the  EpiHcopal  grade,  with  the  design  of 
being  speedily  disengaged  from  its  labo<irs;  but  may  have 
unforeseen  consequences,  by  the  sanction  which  it  extends 
to  a  very  pernicious  assumption  of  the  papacy.  The  ad- 
vocates of  the  right  of  resignation  constantly  affirm,  that 
there  is  a  distinction  between  office  and  jurisdiction.  The 
primitive  Church  knew  nothing  of  this.  It  was  a  notion 
started  by  those  called  the  schoolmen,  and  seized  by  the 
popes,  to  favour  the  position  that  all  jurisdiction  is  from 
them.  This  was  the  shield  opposed  to  what  a  great  pro- 
portion, probably  a  majority  of  the  body,  anxiously  desired, 
but  could  not  accomplish — a  determination  in  favour  of  the 
divine  institution  of  Episcopacy. 

On  the  case  of  Bishop  Chase,  it  ought  to  be  noticed,  tiiat 
Jihere  was  given  in  to  both  houses^  a  protest  against  the 
considering  of  him  as  severed  from  the  diocese  ;  signed  bv 
some  members  of  the  Church  in  Ohio,  including  one  of  the 
clergy.  It  did  not  appear,  that  the  sentiment  was  of  sucl> 
extent,  as  to  claim  an  influence  on  the  proceedings  of  the 
body. 

UU.  Page  01. 

It  may  be  hoped,  that  no  one  will  censure  the  bishops^ 
because  of  their  declining  to  exercise  a  visitatorial  power, 
in  their  aggregate  capacity.  The  notion  that  they  should; 
be  called  from  their  dioceses,  on  any  of  the  innumerable 
cases  of  appeal,  which  may  occur  in  such  an  institution,  is 
too  extravagant  to  bo  reasonably  entertained.     There  ha* 


264  Xotes  to  page  (ii. 

been  already  an  appeal  to  them,  on  tlie  constitutionality  of 
the  sale  of  a  body  of  land,  of  tlie  propriety  of  which  they 
knew  nothing.  The  ai)peal  was  made  to  them  individually. 
But,  had  they  given  their  determinations  in  that  form,  with- 
out discussion,  and  without  a  comparing  of  their  opinions, 
it  would  surely  not  have  been  a  wise  expedient.  As  to  the 
other  i)roi)osal,  of  noticing  the  concerns  of  the  body  apply- 
ino-;  it  was  perhaps  from  some  oversight,  that  a  copy  of 
the  proceedings  was  not  sent.  It  ought  not  to  be  supposed, 
that  the  General  Convention  was  expected  to  sanction  them, 
in  utter  ignorance  of  their  nature  and  of  their  tendency. 

It  will  not  be  foreign  to  the  purpose,  to  record  from  what 
cause,  there  originated  the  combining  of  tire  presidency  of 
the  college  with  the  Episcopacy  of  the  diocese. 

When  Bishop  Chase  was  collecting  in  England,  certain 
contributioiTS  were  made,  for  the  declared  purpose  of  found- 
ing a  theological  seminary,  to  be  always  under  the  care  of 
the  bishop  for  the  time  being.  This  feature  of  the  present 
institirtion  may  well  remain,  becairse  appendant  to  the 
Episcopacy,  o«  swch  terms  as  not  to  be  liable  to  be  exer- 
cised to  the  dis()lacingof  the  occupant  of  the  latter.  After 
the  return  of  Bishop  Chase,  there  was  instituted  Kenyon 
College,  enlarging  the  sphere  of  instruction.  This  produces 
the  incongruity  complained  of.  It  may  be  remedied  by  a 
legislative  act;  which  would  not  interfere  with  the  faitly 
pledged  to  the  English  donors. 

WW.  Page  61. 

The  author  of  this  continuation  is  still  of  the  opinion, 
expressed  in  a  former  portion  of  it,  and  grounded,  not 
only  on  the  discrepancies  of  ditlerent  judgments,  but  on  the 
Tariety  of  taste,  that  it  would  have  been  better  to  have  left 
the  whole  book  untouched.  In  this  case  every  parish  mi- 
nister would  have  been  at  liberty,  either  to  cause  to  be 
bound  the  whole  of  the  said  book  with  the  Book  of  Common- 
Prayer,  or  such  parts  of  the  former  as  he  might  judge  the 
most  edifying  to  his  own  congregation,  and  to  any  other 
persons  who  nught  prefer  the  acceptance  of  the  volume  in 
that  form.  It  is  well  known,  that  in  this  Church,  as  in  the 
Church  of  England,  the  use  of  the  metre  Psalms  rests  en- 
tirely on  the  ground  of  permission.  The  entertaining  of 
these  sentiments  did  not  prevent  the  author,  as  a  member 
of  the  committee,  from  giving  his  aid  to  the  perfecting  of 
the  selection.     Further,  it  is  not  intended  to  deny,  that  there 


Notes  to  page  62,  63.  26^ 

may  profitably  be  a  review  of  the  whole  version  of  Tate 
arid  Brady.  IJut,  it  is  a  work  which  would  require,  besides 
other  qualifications,  a  very  exact  knowledge  of  the  original 
Hebrew. 

XX.  Page  62. 

The  most  beneficial  designs  are  liable  to  drawbacks. 
The  munificent  legacy  of  Frederick  Kohne,  Esq.,  although 
the  benefit  of  it  is  not  to  come  into  present  efficiency,  1ms 
led  too  many  to  imagine,  that  the  institution  is  sufiiciently 
provided  for.  It  «vili  be  to  the  dishonour  of  our  Church,  if 
the  trustees  shouM  be  under  the  necessity  of  anticipating 
this  fund.  At  present,  the  expenses  of  the  institution  con- 
siderably exceed  its  income.  Although  the  deficiency  will 
be  lessened  by  the  later  legacy  of  George  Lorillard,  Esq., 
of  $  20,000,  to  be  paid  within  five  years ;  yet  it  will  fall 
short  of  the  supply  which  the  state  of  the  funds  demands. 
It  ought  to  be  made  known,  that  the  seminary  is  under  the 
necessity  of  availing  itself  of  the  gratuitous  services  of  some 
of  its  professors,  in  whole  or  in  part ;  and  that  of  those 
who  give  their  time  entirely  to  the  labour  of  instruction, 
the  compensation  is  far  less  than  what  is  due  to  their 
talents  and  their  assiduity. 

YY.  Page  62. 

The  rule  of  presidency  is  seniority  merely  ;  and  seniority 
is  to  be  estimated  according  to  the  dates  of  consecration 
respectively.  When  two  or  more  bishops  are  consecrated 
together,  seniority  is  to  be  determined  by  the  dates  of  the 
election  of  thera  severally. 

ZZ.  Page  63. 

At  the  time  of  the  reformation,  all  the  churches  stood  east 
and  west.  How  it  is  with  the  many  new  churches  lately 
built,  is  not  here  known.  Certainly  there  is  no  law,  eccle- 
siastical or  civil,  requiring  such  a  position  ;  and  it  may  be 
rendered  very  inconvenient  by  the  shape  of  a  selected  lot. 
The  origin  ascribed  to  the  custom,  in  the  expectation  that 
the  second  coming  of  our  Lord  will  be  from  the  east,  has 
been  proved  to  be  groundless,  by  our  improved  knowledge 
of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth. 

Still,  the  change  now  made,  although  agreeable  to  the 

34 


266  Noks  to  page  63. 

spirit  of  the  rubric,  is,  in  a  slii^ht  degree,  a  departure  from' 
the  letter  of  it.  Perhaps,  considering  the  ground  on  which 
our  rubrics  authoritatively  rest,  it  would  have  been  better  to 
have  made  the  jiresent  measure  interpretative;  affirming 
that  when  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  an  instrument  are  in 
opposition,  the  former  should  govern. 

AAA.  Page  63. 

What  a  wonderful  change  has  the  author  lived  to  witness, 
in  reference  to  American  Episcopacy  !  He  remembers  the 
ante-revolutionary  times,  when  the  presses  profusely  emitted 
pamphlets  and  newspaper  disquisitions  on  the  question, 
whether  an  American  bishop  were  to  be  endured  ;  and 
when  threats  were  thrown  out  of  throwing  such  a  person, 
if  sent  among  us,  into  the  river;  although  his  agency  was 
advocated  for  the  sole  purpose  of  a  communion  submitting 
itself  to  his  spiritual  jurisdiction.  It  is  true,  that  the  subject 
was  entangled  with  the  affirmed  danger  of  subserviency  to 
the  designs  of  the  government  of  the  mother  country,  in 
her  hostility  to  the  rights  of  her  colonies.  Such  was  the 
effect  of  the  combining  of  these  two  oj)posite  interests,  and 
so  specious  were  the  pretensions  of  the  anti-episcopalian 
opposition  to  the  measure,  that  it  would  have  been  impos- 
sible to  have  obtained  a  respectably  signed  lay  petition  for 
it,  to  our  superiors  in  England,  although  to  relieve  us  from 
the  hardship  of  sending  candidate?)  for  the  ministry  to  that 
country,  to  be  ordained.  When,  after  the  revolution,  it 
was  hoped  that  the  door  would  be  open  for  the  accomplish- 
ing of  the  object,  even  among  those  who  were  zealous  for 
the  obtaining  of  it,  there  arose  the  question,  whether,  in 
deference  to  prejudice,  there  should  not  be  dropped  the  name 
of  bishop ;  and  the  succession  be  continued  under  another 
name. 

Behold  the  difference  of  result.  The  order  has  now 
existed  among  us  for  nearly  the  half  of  a  century  ;  and  not  a 
single  complaint  has  been  heard,  cither  of  usurpation  to 
the  injury  of  any  other  denomination,  or  of  arbitrary 
government  within  our  own.  If,  in  one  instance,  there  has 
been  made  the  charge  of  such  a  character,  it  has  not  been 
in  the  department  of  the  Episcopacy,  but  in  one  of  another 
nature. 

Tn  regard  as  well  to  that  property  of  ecclesiastical  ad- 
ministration, as  the  Church  herself,  the  author  prays,  in 
the  words  of  father  Paul,  of  Venice — "  Esto  perpetua." 


Koies  (u  page  63,  6-i.  267 


BBB.  Page  63.     Of  the  Conventiun  in  1835. 

Bisiiop  Chase  had  become  severed  from  the  diocese  of 
Ohio,  by  the  circumstance,  that  in  the  constitution  of  Ken- 
yon  College,  there  was  the  provision,  that  the  presidency 
of  it  should  be  attached  to  the  Episcopacy.  The  paramount 
authority  of  the  institution  was  in  a  board  of  trustees.  On 
a  disagreement  between  them  and  the  bishop  in  the  man- 
agement of  the  concerns,  the  latter  resigned  his  collegiate 
station  ;  which  drew  along  with  it  the  resignation  of  the 
diocesan  Episcopacy.  This  fact  ought  not  to  be  recorded, 
without  notice  of  the  impropriety  of  a  provision,  subjecting 
the  bishop  to  any  other  tenure  of  his  ecclesiastical  station, 
than  that  provided  by  the  canons.  In  a  college,  without 
any  charge  against  the  bishop  in  his  Episcopal  character, 
there  may  be  dissatisfaction  in  the  minds  of  the  trustees, 
resultin.1:'  in  his  resignation  of  the  presidency,  or,  he  may 
be  dismissed  by  them,  in  the  latter  case,  he  is  deposed 
from  the  Episcopacy,  by  a  body  consisting  of  presbyters 
and  laymen.  There  is  reason  to  expect,  jhat  this  anomaly 
will  be  corrected. 

CCC.  Page  G3. 

The  writer  of  this  was  of  opinion,  that  there  would  have 
been  advantages  beyond  those  of  the  j)resent  provision,  if 
the  choice  of  the  Psalms  to  be  read  had  been  left  to  the 
officiating  minister. 

DDD.  Page  64. 

When  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  was  framed, 
•all  the  churches  stood  east  and  west,  with  the  chancel  at 
the  east  end.  In  America,  positions  different  from  this 
are  frequent,  there  being  no  law  to  the  contrary.  The 
rubric  certainly  intended,  that  the  minister  should  stand  at 
the  right  end  of  the  table.  The  author  has  always  acted 
on  the  principle,  tliat  the  spirit  of  the  rubric,  being  undeni- 
able, should  be  preferred  to  the  letter.  But  it  was  expe- 
4lient,  that  the  latter  should  be  corrected. 

EEE.  Page  64. 

In  the  management  of  the  concerns  of  missions,  there 


268  Notes  to  pa^e  64. 

was  no  other  embarrassment,  than  what  arose  between  the 
domestic  department  and  the  foreii^n.  Tlie  former  has  the 
advantai^e  ofits  being  a  call  as  it  were  at  our  door,  with  its 
being  less  costly  than  the  other;  and  of  course  admitting 
of  more  to  be  done  with  the  same  amount  of  means.  Some, 
jon  these  accounts,  would  have  confined  to  it  the  exeitions 
of  our  Church.  Others,  and  it  is  here  conceived  the  greater 
number,  were  for  the  making  of  it  the  prominent  object,  in 
consideration  of  the  many  and  vast  waste  places  of  our  Zion, 
but  were  also  willing  to  apply  to  fort^ign  missions  vvhut  should 
be  (lonations  so  designated.  On  the  other  hand,  there  was 
such  an  ardour  for  foreign  missions  in  some  minds,  as 
seemed  to  make  them  more  prominent  than  the  domestic; 
although  it  was  not  denied,  that  these  also  shoidd  be  sus- 
tained. Under  the  executive  committee,  every  contributor 
was  left  to  his  or  her  choice,  and  it  is  now  the  same  under 
the  Board  of  Missions.  Unfortunately,  with  the  discussion 
of  the  subject,  there  was  mixed  the  question  of  the  place  or 
the  places  of  location.  In  the  result,  the  domestic  was  lo- 
cated in  New- York,  and  the  foreign  in  Philadel|)!iia ;  but 
with  the  hope  of  many,  that  both  of  them  will  be  settled 
finally  in  the  fornier  city.  The  Board  of  3Iissions  are  com- 
petent to  this  ;  and  it  is  thought,  that  considerable  advantage 
W'ill  accrue  from  a  concurrence  of  efibrt.* 

The  said  board  being  clothed  with  considerable  authority, 
and  their  doings  being,  in  a  degree,  trie  agency  of  the 
Church  during  the  times  intervening  between  the  (Jeneral 
Conventions,  it  is  thought  [)roper  to  insert  tiieir  constitution 
in  the  Appendix,  No.  3C. 

FFF.  Page  C4. 

This  measure  was  dictated  l)y  the  great  increase  of  popu- 
lation, in  the  lately  settled  counties  of  the  state  of  ISew- 
York.  That  the  diocese  had  become  too  extensive  and  too 
populous  for  a  single  bishop,  was  generally  agreed.  But 
much  doubt  was  entertained,  as  to  its  lieing  now  the  wish 
of  the  greater  number  of  the  clergy  and  of  the  laity  within 
its  limits.  In  this  originated  the  measure  of  sanctioning 
.the  principle  of  expe<iiency,  and  of  referring  to  a  future 
convention  the  carrying  of  it  into  operation. 

The  author  of  this  work,  delivered  at  large  his  senti- 
ments on  the  above  point,  and  on  the  points  connected  with 


Both  bonrdu  are  now  in  New-York 


Kotes  to  page  64,  65.  269 

it.  His  views  were  committed  to  the  press,  in  the  "  Pro- 
testant EpiscopaUan,"  and  he  judges  it  to  be  agreeable  to 
.the  present  design,  to  insert  that  document  in  the  Appen- 
dix, No.  37. 

GGG.  Page  61. 

Within  a  year  before  the  convention,  it  had  been  ex- 
pected, that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  during  the  session  of  that 
body,  would  have  been  consecrated  for  what  has  been 
called  the  South- Western  Diocese.  But  although  there  was 
evidence  that  the  measure  would  have  been  popular;  yet, 
there  being  objections  made  to  the  election  as  irregular,  the 
doctor  declined  compliance.  During  the  session,  there  were 
present  from  that  quarter,  several  gentlemen  who  had  re- 
gretted the  failure,  but  were  gratified  by  the  new  shape  which 
the  subject  had  taken,  and  were  confident  that  it  would  be 
acceptable  to  all  the  states  and  territories  concerned. 

HHH.  Page  64. 

This  measure  arose  from  the  consideration,  that  in  any 
country  to  which  the  Church  may  send  missionary  presby- 
ters, there  may  occur  the  expediency  of  superadding  the 
Episcopacy. 

in.  Page  64. 

The  proposals  referred  to  are  of  great  importance,  and 
were  introduced  in  the  House  of  Bishops  by  Bishop  Hopkins. 
When  our  Church  was  organized,  it  would  have  been  impos- 
sible to  have  carried  the  point  of  jurisdiction  further  than 
as  it  now  stands.  But  there  is  the  imperfection  attending  it, 
that  in  ecclesiastical  trials,  opposite  decisions  may  be  passed 
in  different  dioceses;  which  is  manifestly  a  great  evil. 

KKK.  Page  65. 

The  providing  of  a  German  liturgy,  arose  from  the 
statement,  that  in  some  districts,  there  are  German  families, 
desirous  of  attending  on  the  services  of  our  Church,  and 
whose  acquaintance  with  the  English  language  being  im- 
perfect, as  expressive  of  devotional  sentiment  and  feeling, 
they  would  be  aided  by  the  possession  of  German  Prayer 
Books,  and  by  a  comparing  of  them  with  the  English. 


Notes  to  page  C5. 


LLL.  Page  C5. 


The  peo{)le's  repeating  of  the  confession  siinuUaneousl/ 
with  the  minister,  renders  it  the  more  solemn,  and  most 
probably,  as  in  other  places,  was  contemplated  by  the 
compilers. 

As  for  the  question  of"  Amen,"  the  author  must  confess 
himself  not  furnished  with  sufficient  information.  He  does 
not  know  any  rubric  or  canon  prescribing  the  difference  of 
type.  There  is  before  him  a  Prayer  Book,  edited  under 
Charles  I.  in  which  no  such  difference  is  made.  In  another, 
under  Queen  Anne,  it  appears,  not  only  in  the  places  desig- 
nated by  the  convention,  but  in  njany  others;  although  the 
cause  of  the  diversity  is  not  obvious.  In  Baskerville's  edition, 
there  is  the  difference  of  type;  and  perhaps  in  all  the  re- 
cent editions  in  England.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  the  con- 
vention had  sufficient  cause  for  the  provision  made;  and  if 
not,  it  is  of  little  moment. 

Since  the  time  of  the  General  Convention,  there  has  been 
raised  a  question,  as  to  the  propriety  of  what  they  have 
required,  of  the  concurrent  voices  of  the  minister  and  of 
the  people.  The  doubt  of  the  requisition  rests  on  the  mean- 
ing of  the  v/ord  "  after,"  which  has  been  construed  as  in- 
applicable to  concurrence.  In  oi)position  to  the  doubt,  the 
following  considerations  had  weight  with  the  convention. 

1st.  The  exhortation  calls  on  tiie  congregation,  to  •'  ac- 
company" the  minister  in  the  ensuing  act,  wliich  cannot  be 
but  by  a  concurrence. 

2d.  TJiere  was  not  perceived  any  reason,  why  the  con- 
fession should  be  different  from  that  in  the  communion 
service,  and  from  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the  morning  and 
evening  services. 

3d.  The  word  "  after"  cannot  have  so  restricted  a  mean- 
ing as  the  doubt  supposes.  It  often  stands  for  "  according 
to"  or  "  imitation  of."  See  Johnson's  Dictionary.  See 
also  in  scripture  many  places,  among  which  are.  Psalm 
xxviii.  6 ;  Psalm  xi.  3 ;  Matthew  vi.  9 ;  and  1  Peter  iii.  5. 
The  Prayer  Book  is  not  without  instances  to  the  effect,  as 
in  the  twenty-eighth  article,  "  after  an  heavenly  and  spirit- 
ual manner;"  and  in  the  litany  as  in  the  English  book — 
**  neither  reward  us  after  our  iniquities." 


Conclusion,  271 


M3IM.  Page  G5. 

In  regard  to  the  Bible,  there  having  been  occasionally 
fypographical  errors,  so  difficult  to  be  avoided,  there  is 
great  reason  of  provision  for  strict  accuracy.  Some  years 
ago  there  had  been  a  very  large  edition,  in  one  instance 
departing  from  the  Greek  text,  in  order  to  favour  the  Con- 
gregational form  of  Church  government. 

Although  there  had  been  provided  what  was  expected  to 
be  a  sufficient  preventive  of  incorrect  editions  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer;  yet,  the  provision  having  been  found 
not  entirely  to  answer  the  purpose,  further  security  was 
thought  necessary,  and  constituted. 

NNN.  Page  G5. 

The  books  and  other  documents,  presented  by  Dr. 
Hawks,  will  be  added  to  those  presented  by  the  author  of 
this,  some  years  ago,  and  now  in  the  library  of  St.  James' 
Church,  in  this  city.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  they  will  be 
placed  under  a  proper  supervision. 

000.  Page  65. 

It  is  remarked  often,  and  with  truth,  that  much  legisla- 
tion is  indicative  of  feeble  administration.  Still,  there  may 
be  fruits  of  experience,  and  changes  of  circumstances,  call- 
ing for  corresponding  changes  of  laws.  It  is  to  be  hoped, 
that  our  Church  has  pursued,  and  will  continue  to  j)ursue, 
a  proper  medium.  For  the  enacted  canons,  it  may  suffice 
to  refer  to  the  iournnl. 


CONCLUSION. 

The  author  has  brought  to  an  end,  a  work  comprehend- 
ing the  proceedings  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  for  somewhat 
more  than  the  half  of  a  century.  He  discontinues  it  from 
this  time,  partly  because  of  his  advance  in  years,  and,  fur- 
ther, because  he  knows  of  some  of  the  clergy,  who  have 
been  lately  attentive  to  the  preservation  of  facts,  falling  un- 
der their  respective  notices.  It  has  been  formerly  a  matter 
$00  little  attended  to.     Incidents,  not  exciting  much  interest 


272  Conclusion. 

at  present,  may  help  in  future  transactions,  by  unfolding 
the  grounds  on  whicli  those  i)receding  them  had  been 
adopted,  and  by  which  they  should  in  some  measure  be  ex- 
plained. 

At  this  finishing  of  these  Memoirs,  he  lifts  his  heart  in 
prayer  to  the  great  Preserver  of  his  health  and  strength, 
that  the  peace  and  the  prosperity  of  the  Church,  of  which 
he  has  been  so  long  a  witness,  and  to  the  promoting  of 
which  he  has  given  his  best  endeavours,  however  feeble, 
and  however  in  etfect  far  short  of  his  desires,  may  be  per- 
petuated, to  the  glory  of  God,  and  to  the  best  interests,  re- 
ligious and  civil,  of  his  people. 

W,  W. 


3.     AN     APPENDIX 


ORIGINAL     PAPERS. 


35 


APPENDIX. 


No.  1.  Page  79, 

Communication  with  the  Court  of  Denmark, 

^opy  of  a  Letter  from  John  Adams,  Esq.  to  the  President  of 
Congress,  dated  the  Hague,  April  22,  1 784. 

Sir, 

1  received,  some  time  since,  a  letter  from  an  American 
gentleman  now  in  London,  a  candidate  for  orders,  desiring 
to  know,  if  American  candidates  might  have  orders  from 
Protestant  bishops  on  the  continent,  and  complaining  that 
he  had  been  refused  by  the  bishop  of  London,  unless  he 
would  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance,  &c. 

Meeting  soon  afterwards  the  Danish  minister,  I  had  the 
curiosity  to  inquire  of  him,  whether  ordination  might  be 
had  in  Denmark.  He  answered  me,  that  he  knew  not,  but 
would  soon  inform  himself.  I  heard  no  more  of  it  until  to- 
day, when  the  secretary  of  his  embassy,  Mr.  De  Rosen- 
crantz,  made  me  a  visit,  and  delivered  me  the  papers,  copies 
of  which  are  enclosed. 

Thus,  it  seems,  that  what  I  meant  as  current  conversation 
only,  has  been  made  the  subject  of  the  deliberation  of  the 
government  of  Denmark  and  their  faculty  of  theology ; 
which  makes  it  necessary  for  me  to  transmit  it  to  congress. 

I  am  happy  to  find  the  decision  so  liberal. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c. 
(Signed,)  J.  ADAMS. 


Translation  of  a  Communication  of  Mr.  de  St.  Saphorin,  to 
Mr.  John  Adams,  dated  the  Hague,  April  21,  1784. 

Mr.  de  St.  Saphorin  has  the  honour  to  communicate  to 
Mr.  Adams  the  answer  he  has  received  from  his  excellency 


876  Appendix — No.  1. 

the  Count  de  Ilosencrone,  privy  counsellor  and  secretary 
of  state  for  foreign  affairs  of  his  Danish  majesty,  relativo 
to  what  Mr.  Adams  desired  to  know.  He  shall  be  happy 
if  this  answer  should  be  a«^reeable  to  him,  as  well  as  to  his 
superiors,  and  usefid  to  his  fellow-citizens.  He  has  the 
honour  to  assure  him  of  his  respect. 
(Signed,  &.c.) 


Translation  of  the  Copy  of  an  Extract  of  a  Letter  from  his 
Excellency  the  Count  de  Rosencrone,   Privy  Counsellor  of 
his  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark,  to  Mr.  de  St.  Saphorin, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  from   his   Majesty  to   the   States 
General. 

The  opinion  of  the  theological  faculty  having  been  taken 
on  the  question  made  to  your  excellency  by  Mr.  Adams,  if 
the  American  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  can  be 
consecrated  here  by  a  bisliop  of  the  Danish  Church  f  I  am 
ordered  by  the  king  to  authorize  you  to  answer,  that  such 
an  act  can  take  place  according  to  the  Danish  rites;  but 
for  the  convenience  of  the  Americans  who  are  supposed  not 
to  know  the  Danish  language,  the  Latin  language  will  be 
made  use  of  on  the  occasion;  for  the  rest,  nothing  will  be 
exacted  from  the  candidates,  but  a  profession  conformable 
to  the  articles  of  the  English  Church,  omitting  the  oath 
called  test,  which  prevents  their  being  ordained  by  the 
English  bishops. 


Secretary's  Office,  6lh  April,  1785. 
Sir, 

Copies  of  the  enclosed  letters  fron)  Mr.  .John  Adams  and 
Mr.  de  St.  Saphorin,  upon  the  subject  of  conferring  holy 
orders  agreeably  to  the  principles  of  the  Church  of  England, 
were  this  day  received  by  council;  who  have  been  pleased 
to  direct  that  they  should  be  communicated  to  you. 

I  must  beg  that  they  be  returned  to  this  office,  as  soon 
as  you  may  find  it  convenient,  and  am, 

Sir,  with  the  greatest  respect, 
Your  most  obedient, 
Hund)le  servant, 
(Signed,)  J.  ARMSTROJNG,  Jur. 

Hev.  Dr.  Wm.  White. 


Appendix' — Xo.  2.  277 

A?iswer. 

Sir, 

I  request  you  to  present  to  the  honourable  council,  my 
grateful  sentiments  of  their  polite  attention  to  the  interests 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  your  coninjunication  of  this 
morning. 

Their  condescension  will  be  an  apology  for  my  troubling 
them  with  the  perusal  of  an  act  of  the  British  parliament, 
having  the  same  operation  with  the  liberal  and  brotlicrly 
proceeding  of  the  Danish  government  and  clergy.  And  tlie 
liberty  I  have  taken  may  hereafter  exempt  some  of  my 
brethren  from  the  suspicion  of  having  entered  into  obliga- 
tions inconsistent  with  their  duty  to  their  country. 

But,  sir,  it  would  be  injustice  to  the  Episcopal  Church, 
were  I  to  neglect  to  inform  the  honourable  board,  that  1 
take  it  to  be  a  general  sentiment,  not  to  depend  on  any 
foreign  authority  for  the  ordination  of  ministers,  or  for  any 
other  matter  appertaining  to  religion.  As  the  light  in  which 
we  shall  hereafter  be  viewed  by  our  fellow-citizens  must 
depend  on  an  adherence  to  the  above  mentioned  principle, 
I  take  the  liberty  to  submit  to  the  honourable  council  two 
printed  accounts  of  proceedings  held  in  this  city  and  in 
New- York. 

With  my  most  dutiful  thanks  to  the  honourable  board, 
and  with  all  due  submission,  I  am,  sir, 

Their  and  your  very  humble  servant, 

WM.  WHITE. 
April  6lh,  1785. 

J.  Armstrong,  Esq. 


No.  2.  Page  79. 

Communication  of  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut,  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York. 

New-York,  April  21, 1783. 
Mv  Lord, 

The  clergy  of  Connecticut,  deeply  impressed  with  anxious 
apprehension  of  what  may  be  the  fate  of  the  Church  in 
America,  under  the  present  changes  of  empire  and  policy, 
beg  leave  to  embrace  the  earliest  moment  in  their  power  to 
address  your  grace  on  that  important  subject. 


278  Appendix — No.  2. 

This  part  ol*  America  is  at  length  dismembered  from  tlj« 
British  empire;  but,  notwithstanding  the  dissolution  of  our 
cicil  connexion  uith  tlie  parent  state,  we  still  hope  to  retain 
the  religious  pulifij ;  the  primitive  and  evangelical  doctrine 
and  discipline,  which,  at  the  reformation,  were  restored  and 
established  in  the  Church  of  England.  To  render  that 
polity  complete,  and  to  provide  for  its  perpetuity  in  this 
country,  by  the  establishment  of  an  American  Episcopate, 
lias  long  been  an  object  of  anxious  concern  to  us,  and  to 
many  of  our  brethren  in  other  parts  of  this  continent. 
The  attainment  of  this  object  appears  to  have  been  hitherto 
obstructed  by  considerations  of  a  political  nature,  which  we 
conceive  were  founded  in  groundless  jealousies  and  misap- 
prehensions that  can  no  longer  be  supj)osed  to  exist:  and 
therefore,  whatever  may  be  the  efi'ect  of  independency  on 
this  country,  in  other  respects,  we  presume  it  will  be  al- 
lowed to  open  a  door  for  renewing  an  application  to  the 
spiritual  governors  of  the  Church  on  this  head;  an  applica- 
tion which  we  consider  as  not  only  seasonable,  but  more 
than  ever  necessary  at  this  time;  because,  if  it  be  now  any 
longer  neglected,  there  is  reason  to  apprehend  that  a  plan 
of  a  very  extraordinary  nature,  lately  formed  and  published 
in  Philadelphia,  may  be  carried  into  execution.  This  plan 
is,  in  brief,  to  constitute  a  nominal  Episcopate  by  the  united 
suffrages  of  presbyters  and  laymen.  The  peculiar  situation 
of  the  Episco|)al  churches  in  Anjerica,  and  the  necessity  of 
adopting  some  speedy  remedy  for  the  want  of  a  regular 
Episcopate,  are  offered,  in  the  j)ublication  here  alluded  to, 
as  reasons  fully  sufficient  to  justify  the  scheme.  Whatever 
influence  this  project  may  have  on  the  minds  of  the  ignorant 
or  unprinci|)lcd  part  of  the  laity,  or  however  it  may,  j)ossi- 
bly,  be  countenanced  by  some  of  the  clergy  in  other  parts 
of  the  country,  wc  think  it  our  duty  to  reject  such  a  spuri- 
ous substitute  for  Episcopacy,  and,  as  far  as  may  be  in  our 
power,  to  ])revent  its  taking  effect. 

To  lay  the  foundation,  therefore,  for  a  valid  and  regular 
Episcopate  in  America,  we  earnestly  entreat  your  grace, 
that,  in  your  archiepiscopal  character,  you  will  espouse  the 
cause  of  our  sinking  Church,  and,  at  this  important  crisis, 
afford  her  that  relief  on  which  her  very  existence  depends, 
by  consecrating  a  bishop  for  Coimeclicut.  The  person 
whom  we  have  prevailed  upon  to  offer  himself  to  your  grace, 
for  that  purpose,  is  the  reverend  Doctor  Samuel  Seabury, 
who  has  been  the  society's  worthy  missionary  for  many 
years.     He  was  born  and  educated  in  Connecticut — he  is 


Appendix — Nu.  2.  27<) 

personally  known  to  us — and  wo  believe  Iiiui  to  he  every 
way  qualified  for  the  Episcopal  olfice,  and  for  the  dischar^'a 
of  those  duties  peculiar  to  it,  in  the  present  trying  and  dan- 
gerous times. 

All  the  weighty  considerations  which  concur  to  enforce 
our  request,  are  well  known  to  your  grace;  we  therefore 
forbear  to  enlarge,  lest  we  should  seem  to  distrust  your 
grace's  zeal  in  a  cause  of  such  acknoudedged  inqwrtance  to 
the  interests  of  religion.  Suffer  us  then  to  rest  in  humble 
confidence  that  your  grace  will  hear  and  grant  our  petition, 
and  give  us  the  consolation  of  receiving,  through  a  clear 
and  uninterrupted  channel,  an  overseer  in  this  part  of  the 
household  of  God. 

That  God  may  continue  your  life  and  health,  make  you 
in  his  providence  an  eminent  instrument  of  great  and  ex- 
tensive usefulness  to  mankind  in  general,  a  lasting  blessino- 
to  the  Church  over  which  you  preside  in  particular;  and 
that  the  present  and  future  sons  of  the  Church  in  America, 
may  have  cause  to  record  and  perpetuate  your  name  as 
their  friend  and  spiritual  father, — and,  when  your  sacred 
work  is  ended,  that  you  may  find  it  gloriously  rewarded,  is 
and  shall  be  the  devout  prayer  of  the  clergy  of  Connecticut, 
by  whose  order  (in  convention  assembled,)  and  in  whose  be- 
half, this  letter  is  addressed  to  your  grace,  by  your  grace's 
most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

(Signed,)  ABRAHAM  JARVIS. 

Minister  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Bliddlelown, 
and  Secretary  to  the  Convention. 


Testimonial. 

Whereas  our  well  beloved  in  Christ,  Samuel  Seabury, 
doctor  of  divinity,  and  missionary  of  Staten-lsland,  in  this 
province,  is  about  to  embark  for  England,  at  the  earnest 
request  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  Connecticut,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  presenting  himself  a  candidate  for  the  sacred 
office  of  a  bishop;  and  that  when  consecrated  and  admitted 
to  the  said  office,  he  may  return  to  Connecticut,  and  there 
exercise  the  spiritual  powers,  and  discharge  the  duties 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  Episcopal  character,  among  the 
members  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  superintending  the 
clergy,  ordaining  candidates  for  holy  orders,  and  confirming 
such  of  the  laity  as  may  choose  to  be  confirmed — We,  the 
subscribers,  desirous  to  testify  our  hearty  concurrence  iij 


280  Appendix— Nq.  Z. 

this  measiiro,  and  promote  its  success  ;  as  well  as  to  declare" 
tlio  liigii  opinion  we  justly  entertain  of  Doctor  Seabury'^i 
learning,  abilities,  prudence,  and  zeal  for  religion,  do  hereby 
certif)',  that  we  have  been  personally  and  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  the  said  Doctor  Seabury  for  many  years 
past — that  wc  I)elievc  him  to  be  every  way  qualified  for  the 
sacred  office  of  a  bishop;  the  several  duties  of  which  office, 
we  are  firmly  persuaded,  he  will  discharge  with  honour, 
dignity,  and  lldclity,  and  consequently  with  advantage  to 
the  Church  of  God. 

And  we  cannot  forbear  to  express  our  most  earnest 
wish,  tlint  Doctor  Seabury  may  succeed  in  this  application, 
as  it  will  be  the  means  of  preserving  the  Church  of  England 
in  America  from  ruin,  and  of  preventing  many  irregularities 
which  we  see  approaching,  and  which,  if  once  introduced, 
no  after  care  may  be  able  to  remove. 
Given  under  our  hands,  at  New-  York,  this  twenty-first  day  of 

April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  thousand  seven  hundred 

and  eighty-three. 

JEREMIAH  LEAMING,  D.  D. 
CHARLES  INGLIS,  D.  D. 

Rector  of  Triirity  Church,  New-York. 

BENJAMIN  MOORE,  D.  D. 

Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity  Church, 
New-  York,  and  others. 


Letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  York. 

NeiD-York,  May  24,  1783. 
My  LoKD, 

The  reverend  Doctor  Samuel  Seabury  will  have  the  ho- 
nour of  presenting  this  letter  to  your  grace.  He  goes  to 
England  at  the  request  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  Connec- 
ticut, on  business  highly  interesting  and  important.  They 
have  written  on  the  subject  to  your  grace,  and  also  to  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  bishop  of  London.  But, 
as  they  were  pleased  to  consult  us  on  the  occasion,  and  to 
submit  what  they  had  written  to  our  inspection,  requesting 
our  concurrence  in  their  application,  their  letters  are  dated 
at  New- York,  and  signed  only  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jarvis,  the 
secretary  to  their  convention,  whom  they  commissioned  and 
sent  here  for  that  purpose. 

The  measure  proposed,  on  this  occasion,  by  our  brethren 
of  Connecticut,  could  not  fail  to  have  our  hearty  concurrence. 


Appendix — No.  2.  281 

For  we  are  decidedly  of  opidion,  that  no  otlier  means  can 
be  devised  to  preserve  the  existence  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  cor.ntry.  We  have  therefore  joined  with 
Mr.  Jarvis  in  giving  Doctor  Scabiiry  a  testimonial,  in  which 
we  have  briefly,  but  sincerely,  expressed  our  sense  of  his 
merit,  and  our  earnest  wishes  for  the  success  of  liis  under- 
taking. 

Should  he  succeed  and  be  consecrated,  he  means  (with 
the  approbation  of  the  society,)  to  return  in  the  character, 
and  perform  tiie  duties  of  a  missionary,  at  New-London,  in 
Connecticut;  and  on  his  arrival  in  that  country,  to  make 
application  to  the  governor,  in  hope  of  being  cheerfully 
pernsitted  to  exercise  the  spiritual  powers  of  his  Ej)iscopal 
office  there;  in  whicli,  we  are  persuaded,  he  will  meet  with 
little,  if  any  opposition.  For  many  persons  of  character  in 
Connecticut,  and  elsewhere,  who  are  members  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  have  lately  declared  they  have  no  longer  any 
objection  to  an  Am.erican  Episcopate,  now  that  the  inde- 
pendence of  this  country,  acknowledged  by  Great-Britain, 
has  removed  their  apprehensions  of  the  bishops  being  in- 
vested with  a  share  of  temporal  power  by  the  British 
government. 

We  flatter  ourselves  that  any  impediments  to  the  con- 
secration of  a  bishop  for  America,  arising  from  the  peculiar 
constitution  of  the  Church  of  England,  may  be  removed  by 
the  king's  royal  permission  ;  and  we  cannot  entertain  a 
doubt  of  his  majesty's  readiness  to  grant  it. 

In  humble  confidence  that  your  grace  will  consider  the 
object  of  this  application  as  a  measure  worthy  of  your 
zealous  patronage,  we  beg  leave  to  remind  your  grace,  that 
several  legacies  have  been,  at  different  times,  bequeathed 
for  the  support  of  bishops  in  America,  and  to  express  our 
hopes  that  some  part  of  those  legacies,  or  of  the  interest 
arising  from  them,  may  be  approjjriated  to  the  maintenance 
of  Doctor  Seabury,  in  case  he  is  consecrated,  and  settles  in 
America.  We  conceive  that  the  separation  of  this  country 
from  the  parent  state,  can  be  no  reasonable  bar  to  such 
appropriation,  nor  invalidate  the  title  of  American  bishops, 
who  derive  their  consecration  from  the  Church  of  England, 
to  the  benefit  of  those  legacies.  And  perhaps,  this  charit- 
able assistance  is  now  more  necessary,  than  it  would  have 
been,  had  not  the  empire  been  dismembered. 

We  take  this  opportunity  to  inform  your  grace,  that  we 
have  consulted  his  excellency  Sir  Guy  Carleton,  on  the 
subject  of  procuring  the  appointment  of  a  bishop  for  th^ 

30 


282  Appendix — \u.  3. 

province  of  iVova-Scotia,  on  which  he  1ms  expressed  to  ^m' 
his  entire  approbation,  and  lias  written  to  administration^ 
warmly  recommending  the  measure.  We  took  the  liberty, 
at  the  same  time,  of  mentioning  our  worthy  brother,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Thonias  B.  Chandler,  to  his  excellency,  as  n 
person  every  way  qualified  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the 
Episcopal  office  in  that  province,  with  dignity  and  honour. 
And  we  hope  for  your  grace's  approbation  of  what  we  havo 
done  in  that  matter,  and  for  the  concurrence  of  your  influ- 
ence with  Sir  Guy  Carleton's  recommendation  in  promoting 
the  design. 

We  should  have  given  this  information  sooner  to  your 
grace,  but  that  we  waited  for  Doctor  Seabury's  departure- 
for  England,  which  we  considered  as  alFording  the  best 
and  most  proper  conveyance. 

If  Doctor  Chandler  and  Doctor  Seabnry  should  both 
succeed,  as  we  pray  God  they  may,  we  trust  that,  with  the 
blessing  of  heaven,  the  Episcopal  Church  will  yet  flourish 
in  this  western  hemisphere. 

With  the  warmest  sentiments  of  respect  and  esteem,  we 
have  the  honour  to  be, 
My  lord, 

Your  grace's  most  dutiful  sons, 

And  obedient,  humble  servants, 

JEREMIAH  LEAMING,  D.  D. 
CHARLES  INGLIS,  D.  D. 
Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New-  York. 
BENJAMIN  MOORE,  D.  D. 
Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity  Churchy. 
Neiv-York,  and  others. 
His  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  York. 


No.  3.  Page  92. 

A  Letter  from  the  Rev.  Abraham  Jarvis^  in  the  Name  of  the 
Clergy  of  Connecticut. 

Reverend  Sir, 

We,  the  clergy  of  Connecticut,  met  at  Woodbury  in  volun- 
tary convention,  beg  leave  to  acquaint  you,  that  a  small 
pamphlet,  printed  in  Philadelphia,  has  been  transmitted 
to  us,  of  which  you  are  said  to  be  the  author.  This  pamphlet 
proposes  a   new  form   of  government   in   the   Episcopal 


Appendix — No.  8.  283 

•^lJIuu'cIi,  and  points  at  the  method  of  erecting  it.  As  the 
thirteen  states  liave  now  risen  to  indej)endent  sovereignty., 
v/e  agree  with  }0u,  sir,  that  the  chain  which  connected  tliis 
with  the  mother  Church  is  hroken ;  that  the  American 
Church  is  now  left  to  stand  in  its  own  strength — and  that 
some  change  in  its  regulations  must  in  due  time  take  place. 
But  we  think  it  premature  and  of  dangerous  consequence, 
to  enter  upon  so  cajjital  a  husiness,  till  we  have  resident 
bishops  (if  they  can  he  obtained)  to  assist  in  the  performance 
of  it,  and  to  form  a  new  union  in  the  American  Church, 
under  proper  superiors,  since  its  union  is  now  broken  with 
such  superiors  in  the  British  Church.  We  shall  only  advert 
lo  such  things  in  the  pamphlet,  as  we  esteem  of  dangerous 
consequence.  You  say  the  conduct  you  mean  to  recom- 
mend, is  to  include  in  the  proposed  frame  of  government  a 
general  approbation  of  Episcopacy,  and  a  declaration  of  an 
intention  to  procure  the  succession  as  soon  as  conveniently 
may  be;  but  in  the  mean  time  to  carry  the  plan  into  effect, 
without  waiting  for  the  succession.  But  why  do  you  include 
a  general  approbation  of  Episcopacy,  in  your  proposed  new 
frame  of  government  ?  not  because  you  think  bishops  a  con- 
stituent part  of  an  Episcopal  Church,  unless  you  conceive 
they  derive  their  otiice  and  existence  from  the  king's  au- 
thority ;  for  though  you  acknowledge  we  cannot  at  present 
have  bishops  here,  and  propose  to  set  up  without  them,  yet 
you  say  no  constitutional  principle  of  our  Church  is  changed 
by  the  revolution,  but  what  was  founded  on  the  authority 
of  the  king.  Your  motives  for  the  above  general  approba- 
tion, seem  indeed  to  be  purely  political.  One  is,  that  the 
general  opinion  of  Episcopalians  is  in  favour  of  bishops, 
and  therefore,  (if  we  understand  your  reasoning)  it  would 
be  impolitic  not  to  flatter  them  with  the  hopes  of  it.  An- 
other reason  is,  that  too  wide  a  deviation  from  the  British 
Church  might  induce  future  emigrants  from  thence,  to  set 
up  independent  churches  here.  But  could  you  have  pro- 
posed to  set  up  the  ministry,  without  waiting  for  the  succes- 
sion, had  you  believed  the  Episcopal  superiority  to  be  an 
ordinance  of  Christ,  with  the  exclusive  authority  of  ordina- 
tion and  government,  and  that  it  has  ever  been  so  esteemed 
in  the  purest  ages  of  the  Church?  and  yet  we  conceive  this 
10  be  the  sense  of  Episcopalians  in  general,  and  warranted 
by  the  constant  practice  of  the  Christian  Church.  Really, 
sir,  we  think  an  Episcopal  Church  without  Episcopacy,  if  it 
l>e  not  a  contradiction  in  terms,  would,  however,  be  a  new 
*shing  under  the  sun  ;  and  yet  the  Episcopal  Church,  by  thft 


234  Appendix — Nu.  3. 

pamphlet  proposed  to  be  erected,  must  be  ia  this  j)rediciu 
ment  till  the  succession  be  obtained.     You  plead  necessity, 
however,  and  arffue  that  the  best  writers  in  the  Church, 
admit  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  where  Lpiscopal  cannot 
be  had.     To  prove  this,  you   quote  concessions  from  the 
venerable  Hooker,  and  Dr.  Chandler,  which  their  exube- 
rant charity  to  the  reformed  churches  abroad,  led  them  to 
jnakc.     But  the  very  words  yo\i  quote  from  the  last  men- 
tioned gentleman  prove  his  opinion  to  be,  that  bishops  were 
as  truly  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  as  essential  to  his 
Church  as  the  sacraments;  for,  say  you,  he  insists  upon  it 
(meaning  the  Episcopal  superiority,)  as  of  divine  right,  as- 
serts that  the  laws  relating  to  it  bind  as  strongly  as  the  laws 
which  relate  to  baptism  and  the  holy  eucharist,  and  that  if 
the  succession  be  once  broken,   not  all  the  men  on  earth, 
not  all  the  angels  in  heaven,  without  an  immediate  commis- 
sion from  Christ,  can  restore  it — but  you  say,  he  does  not, 
however,  hold  this  succession  to  be  necessary,  only  wliere  it 
can  be  had.     Neither  does  he  or  the  Christian  Church  hold 
the  sacraments  to  be  necessary,  where  they  cannot  be  had 
agreeable  to  the  appointment  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church.   Why  should  j)articular  acts  of  authority  be  thought 
more  necessary  than  the  authority  itself?     Why  should  the 
sacraments  be  more  essential  than  that  authority  Christ  has 
ordained  to  administer  them?     It  is  true  that  Christ  has 
appointed  the  sacraments,  and  it  is  as  true  that  he  hath  ap- 
pointed officers  to  administer  them,  and  has  expressly  forbid 
any  to  do  it  but  those  who  are  authorized  by  his  appoint- 
ment, or  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron.     And  yet  these  gen- 
tlemen   (without    any    inconsistency    with    their    declared 
sentiments)   have,   and    all   good    men   will  express    their 
charitable  ho[)es,  that  God,  in  compassion  to  a  well  meant 
zeal,  will  add  the  same  blessings  to  those  who,  through  un- 
avoidable mistake,  act  beside  his  commission  as  if  they 
really  had  it.     As  far  as  we  can  find,  it  has  been  the  con- 
sstant  opinion  of  our  Church  in   England  and  here,  that  the 
Episcopal  superiority  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  we 
think  that  the   uniform   practice  of  the  whole  American 
Church,  for  near  a  century,  sending  their  candidates  three 
thousand  miles  for  holy  orders,  is  more  than  a  |)resumptive 
proof  that  the  Church  here  are,  and  ever  jiave  been,  of  this 
opinion.    The  sectaries,  soon  after  tlie  reformation,  declared 
that  the  book  of  consecration,  c\:c.  was  superstitious  and 
contrary  to  God's  word,  and  the  moderation  you  mention  in 
Ihe  articles  and  canons,  consists  in  affirming  that  this  decla- 


Appendix — iSo.  3.  285 

ration  was  entirely  false ;  and  would  you  wisli  to  l>o  more 
severe  ?  The  instances  you  adduce,  wherein  Presbyterian 
ordination  has  been  tolerated  in  the  Church,  have,  by  its 
best  writers,  been  set  in  such  a  point  of  view  as  to  give  no 
countenance  to  your  scheme,  and  the  authorities  you  quote 
have  been  answered  again  and  again.  It^  you  will  not 
allow  this  superiority  to  have  an  higher  origin  than  the 
apostles;  yet,  since  they  were  divinely  inspired,  we  see  not 
why  their  practice  is  not  equal  to  a  divine  warrant;  and  as 
they  have  given  no  liberty  to  deviate  from  their  practice  in 
any  exigence  of  the  Church,  we  know  not  what  authority 
we  have  to  take  such  liberties  in  any  case.  However,  we 
think  nothing  can  be  more  clear,  than  that  our  Church  has 
ever  believed  bishops  to  have  the  sole  right  of  ordination 
and  government,  and  that  this  regimen  vvas  aj)pointed  of 
Christ  himself,  and  it  is  nov\^,  to  use  youi-  own  words,  humbly 
submitted  to  consideration,  whether  such  Episcopalians  as 
consent  even  to  a  temporary  departure,  and  set  aside  this 
ordinance  of  Christ  for  couveniency,  can  scarcely  deserve 
the  name  of  Christians.  But  would  necessity  warrant  a 
deviation  from  the  law  of  Christ,  and  the  immemorial 
practice  of  the  Church,  yet  what  necessity  have  we  to  plead  ? 
Can  we  plead  necessity  with  any  propriety,  till  we  have 
tried  to  obtain  an  Episcopate,  and  have  been  rejected? 
We  conceive  the  present  to  be  a  more  favourable  ojipoitu- 
nity  for  the  introduction  of  bishops,  than  this  country  has 
before  seen.  However  dangerous  bisliops  formerly  might 
have  been  thought  to  the  civil  rights  of  these  states,  this 
danger  has  now  vanished,  for  such  superiors  will  have  no 
civil  authority.  They  will  be  purely  ecclesiastics.  The 
states  have  now  risen  to  sovereign  authority,  and  bishops 
will  be  equally  under  the  control  of  civil  law  v^ith  other 
clergymen  ;  no  danger,  then,  can  now  be  feared  from  bi- 
shops, but  such  as  may  be  feared  from  presbyters.  This 
being  the  case,  have  we  not  the  highest  reason  to  hope, 
that  the  whole  civil  authority  iqjon  the  continent,  (should 
their  assistance  be  needed)  will  unite  their  inlluence  with 
the  Church,  to  procure  an  office  so  essential  to  it,  and  to 
render  complete  a  profession,  which  contains  so  consider- 
able a  proportion  of  its  inhabitants.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  is  there  any  reason  to  believe,  that  all  the  bishops  in 
England,  and  in  all  the  other  reformed  Churches  in  Europe, 
are  so  totally  lost  to  a  sense  of  their  duty,  and  to  the  real 
wants  of  their  brethren  in  the  Episcopal  Church  here,  as 
to   refuse  to  ordain   bishops  to  preside  over  us,  when  a 


2fc6  Appendix— Nu.  4. 

proper  application  bliall  be  made  to  lliem  for  it  r  If  this 
cannot  be,  wliy  is  not  the  ))resent  a  favourable  op|)ort unity 
ibr  such  an  aj)|)lication  ?  Nothing  is  furtiier  from  tlie  design 
of  this  letter  than  to  begin  a  dispute  with  you  ;  but  in  a 
frank  and  brotherly  way  to  express  our  opinion  of  the 
mistaken  and  dangerous  tendency  of  the  pamphlet.  We 
fear,  should  the  scheme  of  it  be  carried  into  execution  in 
the  southern  states,  it  will  create  divisions  in  the  Church  at 
a  time  when  its  whole  strength  depends  upon  its  unity : 
for  we  know  it  is  totally  abhorrent  from  the  |)rinciples  of 
the  Church  in  the  northern  states,  and  are  fully  convinced 
they  will  never  submit  to  it.  And  indeed  should  we  consent 
to  a  temporary  departure  from  Episcopacy,  there  would  be 
very  little  propriety  in  asking  for  it  afterwards,  and  as  little 
reason  ever  to  expect  it  in  America.  Let  us  all  then  unite 
as  one  man  to  improve  this  favourable  opportunity,  to  pro- 
cure an  object  so  desirable  and  so  essential  to  the  Church. 
We  are,  dear  sir,  your  affectionate  brethren,  the  clergy 
of  Connecticut. 

Signed  by  order  of  the  convention, 

ABRAHAM  JARVIS,  Sec'ry. 
Rev.  Mr.  Wliitc. 
Woodbury,  March  26,  1783. 


No.  4.  Page  100. 

A  Letter  of  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Scabvry,  to  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Smith. 

August  15,  1785. 
Rev.  AM)  DEAR  Sir, 

It  has  not  been  in  my  power  till  this  day,  to  pay  that  at- 
tention to  your  letter  of  July  19,  which  the  iniportance  of 
its  several  subjects  demanded.  The  grand  ditiiciilty  that 
defeated  my  application  for  consecration  in  England,  ap- 
peared to  me  to  be  the  want  of  an  application  iVom  the 
state  of  Connecticut.  Other  objections  are  made,  viz.  that 
there  was  no  precise  diocese  marked  out  by  the  civil  autho- 
rity, nor  a  stated  revenue  appointed  for  the  bishop's  sup- 
port;  but  these  were  removed.  The  other  remained,  i'or 
the  civil  authority  in  Connecticut  is  Presbyterian,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  supposed  would  petition  for  a  bishop; 
and  had  this  been   removed,    I  am   not  sure  that  anolhci 


Appendix — No.  4.  287 

wouUl  not  have  started  up:  lor  this  ha[)j)cnocl  several  times. 
X  waited  and  procured  a  copy  ofan  act  of  the  le<;islatiire  of 
Connecticut,  which  puts  all  denominations  of  Clu'istians  on 
a  footini^  of  equality,  except  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  to 
them  it  gives  a  free  toleration,  certiiied  hy  the  secretary  of 
the  state  ;  for  to  Connecticut  all  my  negotiations  were  con- 
fuied.  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  wished  it  had  been 
fuller,  but  thou»ht  it  aiforded  ground  on  which  to  proceed; 
yet  he  afterwards  said  it  would  not  do;  and  that  the  minis- 
ter, without  a  formal  requisition  from  the  state,  would  not 
suffer  the  bill,  enabling  the  bishop  of  London  to  ordain 
foreign  candidates  without  their  taking  the  oaths,  to  pass 
the  commons,  if  it  contained  a  clause  for  consecrating 
American  bisho|)S.  And  as  his  grace  did  not  choose  to 
proceed  without  parliamentary  authority,  though  if  I  under- 
stood him  right,  a  majority  of  the  judges  and  crown  lawyers, 
were  of  opinion  he  nught  safely  do  it.  I  turned  my  atten- 
tion to  the  remains  of  the  old  Scots  Episcopal  Church, 
whose  consecration  1  knew  was  derived  from  England,  and 
their  authority,  in  an  ecclesiastical  sense,  fully  equal  to  the 
English  bishops.  No  objection  was  ever  made  to  me  on 
account  of  the  legacies  left  for  American  bishops ;  some 
persons  had  surmises  of  this  kind,  but  I  know  not  whence 
they  arose. 

1  can  see  no  good  ground  of  apprehension  concerning  the 
titles  of  estates,  or  emoluments  belonging  to  the  Churcii  in 
your  state;  your  Church  is  still  the  Church  of  England, 
subsisting  under  a  different  civil  government.  We  have  in 
America  the  Church  of  Holland,  of  Scotland,  of  Sweden,  of 
Moravia,  and  why  not  of  England  ?  Our  being  the  Church 
of  England,  no  more  implies  dependence  on  or  subjection  to 
England,  than  being  of  the  Church  of  Holland  implies  sub- 
jection to  Holland.  The  plea  of  the  Methodists  is  some- 
thing like  impudence.  Mr.  Wesley  is  only  a  presbyter,  and 
all  his  ordinations  Presbyterian,  and  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  Church  of  England.  And  they  can  have  no  pretence  for 
calling  themselves  Churchmen,  till  they  return  to  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  which  they  have  unreasonably,  unnecessarily, 
and  wickedly  broken,  by  their  separation  and  schism. 

Your  two  cautions,  respecting  recommendations  and 
titles,  are  certainly  just.  Till  you  are  so  happy  as  to  have 
a  bishop  of  your  own,  it  will  be  a  pleasure  to  me  to  do  any 
thing  I  can  for  the  supply  of  your  churches.  And  I  am 
confident  the  clergy  of  Maryland  and  the  other  states,  will 
be  very  particular  with  regard  to  the  qualifications  and  titles 


288  Appendix — No.  4. 

of  persons  to  be  admitted  into  their  own  order.  Should 
they  think  proper  to  send  any  candidates  hither,  I  would 
wis!i  that  it  might  bo  at  the  slated  times  of  ordination; 
because  the  clergy  here  being  so  scattered,  it  is  not  easy,  on 
every  emergency,  to  get  three  of  them  together;  and  never 
without  some  expense,  which  they  cannot  well  afford.  I 
cannot  omit  to  mention  again  the  i)articular  satisfaction  Mr. 
Ferguson  gave,  not  only  to  me,  but  to  all  our  clergy.  I 
hope  he  will  prove  a  worthy  and  useful  clergyman.  1  llatter 
myself  he  got  home  without  any  disagreeable  accident. 

[  thank  you  for  your  communication  respecting  Wash- 
ington College,  and  the  various  conventions  you  have  had 
in  your  state  and  neighbourhood.  The  clergy  and  laity 
have  particular  merit  in  making  so  great  exertions,  to  get 
our  Church  into  a  settled  and  respectable  state.  But  on 
subjects  of  such  magnitude  and  variety,  it  is  to  be  expected 
that  sentiments  will  differ.  All  men  do  not  always  see  the 
same  object  in  the  same  light;  and  persons  at  a  distance 
are  not  always  masters  of  the  precise  reasons  and  circum- 
stances, which  have  occasioned  particular  modes  of  acting. 
Of  somethings  therefore  in  your  proceedings  I  cannot  be  a 
competent  judge,  without  minute  information ;  and  I  am 
very  sorry  that  my  present  circumstances  and  duty  here, 
will  not  permit  me  to  make  so  long  a  journey  at  this  time; 
because  by  personal  interview  and  conversation  only,  can 
such  information  be  had. 

But,  my  dear  sir,  there  are  some  things  which,  if  I  do 
not  much  misapprehend,  are  really  wrong.  In  giving  my 
opinion  of  them,  1  must  claim  the  same  privilege  of  judging 
for  myself  which  others  claim,  and  also  that  right  of  fair 
and  candid  interpretation  of  my  sentiments  which  is  due  to 
all  men. 

1.  I  think  you  have  done  wrong  in  establishing  so  many 
and  so  precise  fundamental  rules.  You  seem  hereby  to  have 
precluded  yourselves  from  the  benefit  of  after  consideration. 
And  by  having  the  power  of  altering  fundamental  laws  dif- 
fused through  so  large  a  body,  it  appears  tome  next  to  im- 
possible to  have  them  altered,  even  in  some  reasonable 
cases ;  because  cases  really  reasonable  may  not  appear  so 
to  two-thirds  of  so  large  an  assembly.  It  should  also  be 
remembered,  that  while  human  nature  is  as  it  is,  something 
of  party  passion  or  partiality  will  ever  be  apt,  in  some  de- 
gree, to  influence  the  views  and  debates  of  a  numerous  and 
mixed  assembly. 

2.  I  think  you  have  too  much  circumscribed  the  power 


Appendix — Nu>  4.  2^ 

of  ymir  bishops.  That  the  duty  and  office  of  a  bishop  differs 
in  nothimj^  from  that  of  otittr  priests,  except  in  the  power  of 
ordination  and  confirmation,  {Pamphlet,  p.  16,)  is  a  position 
that  carries  Jeroin's  opinion  to  the  highest  pitch,  i^uid 
facitEpiscopus (piod^ preshytrr  non  faciat,  excepta  ordinatione'? 
-But  it  does  not  appear  that  Jeroin  had  the  support  of  the 
Church  in  this  opinion,  hut  rather  the  contrary.  Govern- 
ment as  essentially  pertains  to  bishops  as  ordination  ;  nay, 
ordination  is  but  the  particuUir  exercise  of  government. 
Whatever  share  of  government  presbyters  liave  in  the 
Church,  they  have  from  the  bishop,  and  must  exercise  it  in 
conjunction  with  or  in  s'ubordination  to  him.  And  though 
a  congregation  may  have  a  right,  and  1  am  wiUing  to  allow 
it,  to  choose  their  minister,  as  they  are  to  support  him  and 
live  under  his  ministry,  yet  the  bishop's  concurrence  or 
license  is  necessary,  because  tiiey  are  part  of  his  charge ; 
has  the  care  of  their  souls ;  and  therefore  the  minister's 
authority  to  take  charge  of  that  congregation  must  come 
through  the  bishoj). 

The  choice  of  the  bishop  is  in  the  presbyters;  but  the 
neighbouring  bisho{)s,  who  are  to  consecrate  him,  must  have 
the  right  of  judging  whether  he  be  a  proper  person  or  not. 
The  presbyters  are  the  bishop's  council,  with  whom  he 
ought  to  do  nothing  but  matters  of  course.  The  presbyters 
have  always  a  check  upon  their  bishop;  because  they  can, 
neither  bishop  nor  presbyters,  do  any  thing  beyond  the 
common  course  of  duty,  without  each  other.  I  mean  with 
regard  to  a  particular  diocese;  for  it  does  not  appear  that 
presbyters  had  any  seat  in  general  councils,  but  by  particular 
indulgence. 

The  people,  being  the  patrons  of  the  churches  in  thrs 
country,  and  having  the  means  of  the  bishop's  and  minister's 
support  in  their  hands,  have  a  sufficient  restraint  upon 
them.  In  cases  that  require  it,  they  can  apply  to  their 
bishop,  who,  with  the  assistance  of  his  presbyters,  will  pro- 
ceed, as  the  case  may  require,  to  censure,  suspension,  or 
deposition  of  the  offending  clergyman.  If  a  bishop  behaves 
amiss,  the  neighbouring  bishops  are  his  judges.  Men  that 
are  not  to  be  trusted  with  these  powers  are  not  fit  to  be 
bishops  or  presbyters  at  all. 

This,  I  take  it,  is  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church, 
in  its  pure  and  simple  state.  And  it  is  a  constitution  which, 
if  adhered  to,  will  carry  itself  into  good  effect.  This  con- 
stitution we  have  adopted  in  Connecticut ;  and  we  do  hopm 
and  trust  that  we  shall,  by  God's  grace,   exhibit  to  the 

37 


290  Appemlix—No.  4. 

world,  in  our  government,  discipline,  and  order,  a  pure  and 
perfect  model  of  primitive  simplicity. 

Presbyters  cannot  be  too  careful  in  choosing  their  bishop ; 
nor  tiie  people  in  choosing  their  minister.  Improper  men 
may,  however,  sometimes  succeed  ;  and  so  they  will,  make 
exact  rules  as  you  can,  and  circumscribe  their  power  as  you 
can.  And  an  improper  man  in  the  Church  is  an  improper 
man,  however  he  came  there,  and  however  his  power  be 
limited.  The  more  you  circumscribe  him,  the  greater 
temptation  he  is  under  to  form  a  party  to  support  him  ; 
and  when  his  party  is  formed,  all  the  power  of  your  con- 
vention will  not  be  able  to  displace  him.  In  short,  if  you 
get  a  bad  man,  your  laws  and  regulations  will  not  be 
effectual;  if  a  good  man,  the  general  laws  of  the  Church 
are  sufficient. 

Where  civil  states  have  made  provision  for  ministers,  it 
seems  reasonable  that  they  should  define  the  qualifications, 
and  regulate  the  conduct  of  those  who  are  to  enjoy  the 
emoluments.  But  voluntary  associations  for  the  exercise 
of  such  powers  as  your  convention  is  to  have,  are  always 
apt,  such  is  the  infirmity  of  human  nature,  to  fall  into 
parties;  and  when  ])arty  enters,  animosity  and  discord  soon 
follow.  From  what  has  been  said,  you  will  suppose  I  shall 
object, 

3.  To  the  admission  of  lay  members  into  synods,  &.c. 
I  have  as  great  a  regard  for  the  laity  as  any  man  can  have. 
It  is  for  their  sake  that  ministers  are  appointed  in  the 
Church,  i  have  no  idea  of  aggrandizing  the  clergy  at  the 
expense  of  the  laity  ;  nor  indeed  of  aggrandizing  them  at 
all.  Decent  means  of  living  is  all  they  have  a  right  to 
expect.  But  I  cannot  conceive  that  the  laity  can,  with  any 
propriety,  be  admitted  to  sit  in  judgment  on  bishops  and 
presbyters ;  especially  when  deposition  may  be  the  event ; 
because  they  cannot  take  away  a  character  which  they 
cannot  confer.  It  is  incongruous  to  every  idea  of  Episcopal 
government.  That  authority  which  confers  power,  can, 
for  proper  reasons,  take  it  away.  But  where  there  is  no 
authority  to  confer  power,  there  can  be  none  to  disannul  it. 
Wherever  therefore  the  power  of  ordination  is  lodged,  the 
power  of  deprivation  is  lodged  also. 

Should  it  be  thought  necessary  that  the  laity  should  have 
a  share  in  the  choice  of  their  bishop,  if  it  can  be  put  on  a 
proper  footing,  so  as  to  avoid  party  and  confusion,  I  see 
not  but  that  it  might  be  admitted.  But  I  do  not  apprehend 
that  thish  was  tlie  practice  of  the  primitive  Church.     In 


Appendix — No.  4.  291 

short,  the  rights  of  the  Christian  Church  arise  not  from 
nature  or  compact,  but  from  the  institution  of  Christ;  and 
we  ought  not  to  alter  them,  but  to  receive  and  maintain 
them  as  the  holy  apostles  left  them.  The  government, 
sacraments,  faith,  and  doctrine  of  the  Cisurch,  are  fixed 
and  settled.  We  have  a  right  to  examine  irhat  they  are, 
but  we  must  take  them  as  they  are.  If  we  new  model  the 
government,  why  not  the  sacraments,  creeds,  and  doctrines 
of  the  Church  ^.  But  then  it  would  not  be  Christ's  Church, 
but  our  Church,  and  would  remain  so,  call  it  by  what  name 
we  please. 

1  do  therefore  beseech  the  clergy  and  laity,  uho  shall 
meet  at  Philadelphia,  to  reconsider  the  matter,  before  a 
final  step  be  taken  :  and  to  endeavour  to  bring  their  Church 
government  as  near  to  the  primitive  pattern  as  may  be. 
They  will  find  it  the  siojplest  and  most  easy  to  carry  into 
effect;  and  if  it  be  adhered  to,  will  be  in  no  danger  of 
sinking  or  i'ailing. 

1  do  not  think  it  necessary  that  the  Church,  in  every 
state,  should  be  just  as  the  Church  in  Connecticut  is  ; 
though  1  tliink  that  the  best  model.  Particular  circum- 
stances, 1  know,  will  call  for  particular  considerations. 
But  in  so  essential  a  matter  as  Church  government  is,  no 
alteration  should  be  made  to  affect  its  foundation.  If  a 
man  be  called  a  bishop  who  has  not  the  Episcopal  power  of 
government,  he  is  called  by  a  wrong  name,  even  though  he 
should  have  the  j)ower  of  ordination  and  confirmation. 

Let  me  therefore  again  entreat,  that  such  material  alter- 
ations, and  forgive  me  if  I  say  unjustifiable  ones,  may  not 
be  made  in  the  government  of  the  Church.  I  have  written 
freely,  as  becomes  an  honest  man ;  and  in  a  case  which  I 
think  calls  for  freedom  of  sentiment  and  expression.  I  wish 
not  to  give  offence,  and  I  hope  none  will  be  taken.  What- 
ever I  can  do  consistently  to  assist  in  procuring  bishops  in 
America,  I  shall  do  cheerfully,  but  beyond  that  I  cannot  go  ; 
and  I  am  sure  neither  you,  nor  any  of  the  friends  of  the 
Church,  would  wish  1  should. 

If  any  expression  in  this  letter  should  seem  too  warm,  I  will 
be  ready  to  correct  the  mode,  but  the  sentiments  I  must 
retain  till  I  find  them  wrong,  and  then  I  will  freely  give 
them  up.  In  this  matter  I  am  not  interested  ;  my  ground 
is  taken,  and  I  wish  not  to  extend  my  authority  beyond  its 
proper  limits.  But  I  do  most  earnestly  wish  to  have  our 
churches  in  all  the  states  so  settled,  that  it  may  be  one 
Church  uQited  in  government,  doctrine,  and  discipline — that 


29ii  Appendi.i: — Nu.  4. 

there  may  be  no  division  among  us — no  opposition  of  ui^ 
terests — no  clashing  of  opinions.  And  permit  me  to  hope 
that  you  will,  at  your  approaching  convention,  so  far  recede 
in  the  points  I  have  mentioned,  as  to  make  this  practicable. 
Your  convention  will  bo  large  and  very  much  to  be  re- 
spected. Its  determinations  will  influence  many  of  the 
American  states,  and  j)osterity  will  be  materially  affected 
by  them. 

These  considerations  are  so  many  arguments  for  calm 
and  cool  deliberation.  Human  passions  and  prejudices, 
and,  if  possible,  infirmities,  should  be  laid  aside.  A  wrong 
step  will  be  attended  with  dreadful  consecjuences.  Patience 
and  prudence  must  be  exercised.  And  should  there  bo 
some  circumstances  that  press  hard  for  a  remedy,  hasty 
decisions  will  not  mend  them.  In  doubtful  cases  they  will 
probably  have  a  bad  effect. 

May  the  spirit  of  God  be  with  you  at  Philadelphia,  and 
as  I  persuade  myself  the  sole  good  of  his  Church  is  the  solo 
aim  of  you  all,  I  hope  for  the  best  effects  from  your  meeting. 

I  send  you  the  alterations  which  it  has  been  here  thought 
proper  to  make  in  the  liturgy,  to  accommodate  it  to  the  civil 
constitution  of  this  state.  You  will  observe,  that  there  is 
no  collect  for  the  Congress.  We  have  no  backwardness  in 
that  respect,  but  thought  it  our  duty  to  know  whether  the 
civil  authority  in  this  state  has  any  directions  to  give  in  that 
matter  ;  and  that  cannot  be  known  till  their  next  meeting 
in  October. 

Some  other  alterations  were  proposed,  of  which  Mr. 
Ferguson  took  a  copy;  and  1  would  send  you  a  copy  had  I 
time  to  transcribe  it. 

The  matter  will  be  resumed  at  New-Haven  the  Hth  of 
September.  Should  we  come  to  any  determination,  the 
brethren  to  the  southward  shall  be  informed  of  it. 

With  my  best  regards  to  the  convention  and  to  you,  I 
remain  your  affectionate  humble  servant, 

(Signed,)  SAMUEL, 

Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut. 

1  have  taken  the  liberty  to  enclose  a  copy  of  my  letters 
of  consecration,  which  you  will  please  to  communicate  to 
the  convention  ;  you  will  also  perceive  it  to  be  my  wish  that 
this  letter  should  be  communicated  to  them ;  to  which,  I 
|)rcsume,  there  can  be  no  objection. 


Appendix — No.  5,  „*s)'3 

No.  5.  Page  102. 

Address  of  the  Convention  of  1735,  to  the  English  Prelates. 

To  the  Most  Reverend  and  Right  Reverend  the  Archbishops 

of  Canterhury  and  York,  and  the  Bishops  of  the  Chureh  of 

En2;land. 

We,  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  sundry  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
think  it  our  duty  to  address  your  lordships  on  a  subject 
deeply  interesting,  not  only  to  ourselves  and  those  whom  we 
represent,  but,  as  we  conceive,  to  the  common  cause  of 
Christianity. 

Our  forefathers,  when  they  left  the  land  of  their  nativity, 
did  not  leave  the  bosom  of  that  Church,  over  which  your 
lordships  now  preside;  but,  as  well  from  a  veneration  for 
Episcopal  government,  as  from  an  attachment  to  the  admi- 
rable services  of  our  liturgy,  continued  in  willing  connection 
with  their  ecclesiastical  superiors  in  England,  and  were 
subjected  to  many  local  inconveniencies,  rather  than  break 
the  unity  of  the  Church  to  which  they  belonged. 

When  it  pleased  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe,  that 
this  part  of  the  British  empire  should  be  free,  sovereign, 
and  independent,  it  became  the  most  important  concern  of 
the  members  of  our  communion  to  provide  for  its  continu- 
ance. And  while,  in  accomplishing  this,  they  kept  in  view 
that  wise  and  liberal  part  of  the  system  of  the  Church  of 
England,  which  excludes  as  well  the  claiming  as  the  ac- 
knowledging of  such  spiritual  subjection  as  may  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  civil  duties  of  her  children ;  it  was  never- 
theless their  earnest  desire  and  resolution  to  retain  the 
venerable  form  of  Episcopal  government,  handed  down  to 
them,  as  they  conceived,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles; 
and  endeared  to  them,  by  the  remembrance  of  the  holy 
bishops  of  the  primitive  Church,  of  the  blessed  martyrs  who 
reformed  the  doctrine  and  worship  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  of  the  many  great  and  pious  prelates  who  have 
adorned  that  Church  in  every  succeeding  age.  But  how- 
ever general  the  desire  of  completing  the  orders  of  our  mi- 
nistry, so  diffused  and  unconnected  were  the  members  of 
our  communion  over  this  extensive  country,  that  much  time 
and  negotiation  were  necessary  for  the  forming  of  a  repre- 
sentative body  of  the  greater  number  of  the  Episcopalians 
m  these  states ;  and  owing  to  the  same  causes,  it  was  not 


294  Appendix — No.  5. 

until  this  convention,  that  sufficient  powers  could  be  pro- 
cured for  the  addressing  of  your  lordships  on  this  subject. 

The  petition  which  we  ofter  to  your  venerable  body  is — 
that  from  a  tender  regard  to  the  religious  interests  of  thou- 
sands in  this  rising  empire,  professing  the  same  religious 
princi|)lcs  with  the  Church  of  England,  you  will  be  pleased 
to  confer  the  Episcopal  character  on  such  persons  as  shall 
be  recommended  by  this  Church  in  the  several  states  here 
represented;  full  satisfaction  being  given  of  the  sutHciency 
of  the  persons  recommended,  and  of  its  being  the  intention 
of  the  general  body  of  the  Episcopalians  in  the  said  states 
respectively,  to  receive  them  in  the  quality  of  bishops. 

Whether  this,  our  request,  will  meet  with  insurmountable 
impediments,  from  the  political  regulations  of  the  kingdom 
in  which  your  lordships  fill  such  distinguished  stations,  it  is 
not  for  us  to  foresee.  We  have  not  ascertained,  that  any- 
such  will  exist;  and  are  humbly  of  opinion,  that  as  citizens 
of  these  states,  interested  in  tlieir  prosperity,  and  religi- 
ously regarding  the  allegiance  which  we  owe  them,  it  is  to 
an  ecclesiastical  source  only  we  can  apply  in  the  present 
exigency. 

It  may  be  of  consequence  to  observe,  that  in  these  states 
there  is  a  (Reparation  between  the  concerns  of  policy,  and 
those  of  religion;  that  accordingly,  our  civH  rulers  cannot 
officially  join  in  the  present  ap|)lication  ;  that,  however,  we 
are  far  from  apprehending  the  opposition  or  even  displea- 
sure of  any  of  those  honourable  personages  ;  and,  finally, 
that  in  this  business  we  are  justiuod  by  the  constitutions  of 
the  slates,  which  are  tlie  foundations  and  control  of  all  our 
laws.  On  this  point  we  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  enclosed 
extracts  from  the  constitutions  of  the  respective  states  of 
which  we  are  citizens,  and  we  liatter  oursehes  that  they 
must  h-^  satisfactory. 

Thus,  we  have  «tatcd  to  your  lordships  the  nature  and 
the  grounds  of  our  application;  which  we  have  thought  it 
most  respectful  and  most  suitable  to  the  magnitude  of  the 
object,  to  address  to  your  lordships  for  your  deliberation, 
before  any  person  is  sent  over  to  carry  them  into  efl'ect. 
Whatever  may  be  the  event,  no  time  will  efface  the  re- 
membrance of  the  past  services  of  your  lordships  and  your 
predecessors.  The  archl)i3hops  of  Canterbury  were  not 
prevented,  even  by  the  weighty  concerns  of  their  high  sta- 
tions, from  attending  to  the  interests  of  this  distant  branch 
of  the  Church  under  their  care.  The  bishops  of  London 
were  our  diocesans  ;  and  the  uninterrupted,  although  volun- 


Appendix — No.  5.  295 

lary  submission  of  om*  congregations,  will  remain  a  ppr- 
petiuil  proof  of  their  mild  and  paternal  government.  All 
the  bishops  of  England,  with  other  di.  tingaished  characters, 
as  well  ecclesiastical  as  civil,  have  concurred  in  forminp- 
and  carrying  on  the  benevolent  views  of  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts ;  a  society  to 
whom,  under  God,  the  prosperity  of  our  Church  is  in  an 
eminent  degree  to  be  ascribed,  it  is  our  earnest  wish  to 
be  permitted  to  make,  through  your  lordships,  this  just  ac- 
knowledgment to  that  venerable  society  ;  a  tribute  of  grati- 
tude which  we  the  rather  take  this  opportunity  of  paying, 
as  while  they  thought  it  necessary  to  withdraw  their  pecu- 
niary assistance  from  our  ministers,  they  have  endeared 
their  past  favours  by  a  benevolent  declaration,  that  it  is 
far  from  their  thoughts  to  alienate  their  aifection  from  their 
brethren  now  under  another  government;  with  the  pious 
wish,  that  their  former  exertions  may  still  continue  to  brin<?. 
forth  the  fruits  they  aianed  at,  of  pure  religion  and  virtue- 
Our  hearts  are  penetrated  with  the  most  lively  gratitude 
by  these  generous  sentiments ;  the  long  succession  of  former 
benefits  passes  in  review  before  us ;  we  pray  that  our 
Church  may  be  a  lasting  monument  of  the  usefulness  of  so 
worthy  a  body  ;  and  that  her  sons  may  never  cease  to  be 
kindly  afFectioned  to  the  members  of  that  Church,  the 
fathers  of  which  liave  so  tenderly  watched  over  her  infancy. 

For  your  lordships  in  particular,  we  most  sincerely  wish 
and  pray,  that  you  may  long  continue  the  ornaments  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  at  last  receive  the  reward  of  the 
righteous,  from  the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  souls. 

We  are,  with  all  the  resj)ect  which  is  due  to  your  exalted 
and  venerable  characters  and  stations, 
Your  lordships 

Most  obedient,  and 

Most  humble  servants.* 

In  Convent  I  mi, 
Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  October  5fh,  1785. 

The  preceding  address  and  consequent  measures  for  ob- 
taining the  Episcopacy,  were  contemplated  by  the  following 
plan  of  the  convention,  recorded  on  their  journal.     Ordered : 

First,  That  this  convention  address  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,  requesting  them  to  con- 
fer the  Episcopal  character  on  such  persons  as  shall  be 

'  Signed  by  all  the  members. 


2%  Apj)cndix—No.  5. 

rhoscn  and  rccommondod  to  thorn  for  that  purpose,  fror-^ 
llic  conventions  of  this  Chnrch  in  tho  rcspfctive  states. 

Secondlt/,  That  it  be  r<!Conimendcd  to  the  said  conven- 
tions, that  they  elect  persons  for  this  purpose. 

Third/}/,  That  it  be  further  recommended  to  the  different 
conventions,  at  their  next  respective  sessions,  to  appoint 
commitlees,  with  powers,  to  correspond  with  the  English 
bishops  for  t'le  carrying  of  these  resolutions  into  effect ;  and 
that,  until  such  committees  shall  be  aj^pointed,  they  be  re- 
quested to  direct  any  communications  which  they  may  bo 
j)leased  to  make  on  this  subject  to  the  committee,  consisting 
of  the  ilev.  Dr.  White,  president,  the  Rev.  i)r.  Smith,  the 
Jlev.  Ttir.  Provoost,  the  honourable  James  Duane,  Esq.  and 
Samuel  Powell  and  llichard  Peters,  Esqs. 

Fourthly,  That  it  be  further  recommended  to  the  different 
conventions,  that  they  pay  especial  attention  to  the  making 
it  appear  to  their  lordships,  that  the  persons  who  shall  bo 
sent  to  them  for  consecration,  are  desired  in  the  character 
of  bishops,  as  well  by  the  laity  as  by  the  clergy  of  this 
Church,  in  the  said  states  respectively;  and  that  they  will 
be  received  !>y  them  in  that  character  on  their  return. 

Fifthly,  And  in  order  to  assure  their  lordships  of  the 
legality  of  the  present  ])roposed  application,  that  the  depu- 
ties now  assembled  be  desired  to  make  a  respectful  address 
to  the  civil  rulers  of  the  states  in  which  they  respectively 
reside,  to  certify  that  the  said  application  is  not  contrary  to 
the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  same. 

Sixthly,  And,  whereas,  the  bishops  of  this  Church  will 
not  be  entitled  to  any  of  such  temporal  honours  as  are  due 
to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  the  parent  Church,  in 
quality  of  lords  of  parliament  ;  and  whereas  the  reputatiou 
and  usefulness  of  our  bishops  will  considerably  depend  on 
their  taking  no  higher  titles  or  style  than  will  be  due  to 
their  spiritual  employments  ;  that  it  be  recommended  to  this 
Church  in  the  states  here  represented,  to  i)rovide,  that  their 
resj)ective  bishops  may  be  called,  "  The  Right  Rev.  A.  B. 
bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  C.  D."  and, 
as  bishop,  may  have  no  other  title ;  and  may  not  use  any 
such  style  as  is  usually  descriptive  of  temporal  power  and 
precedency. 


Appendix — Xo.  0.  297 

No.  0.    Parre  111. 

Leiler  of  f lie  IZiiglisli  Prelates. 

London,  February  24,  1786. 
To  the  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  sundry  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  ar{'hl)islio|)  of  Canterbury  liatli  received  an  address, 
dated  in  convention,  Christ  Chnrch,  Philadelphia,  Octo- 
ber 5,  1785,  from  the  clerical  and  lay  depsUies  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Chnrch  in  sundry  of  the  United  States  ot 
America,  directed  to  the  archl)ishops  and  bishops  of  Eng- 
land, and  re(|nesting  them  to  confer  the  E|)iscopal character 
on  snch  persons  as  sliall  be  recommended  by  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  tlie  severaf  states  by  them  represented. 

This  brotherly  and  Christian  address  was  communicated 
to  the  archbishop  of  York,  and  totiie  bishops,  with  as  much 
despatch  as  their  sepaiate  and  distant  situations  would 
permit,  and  hath  been  received  and  considered  by  them 
with  that  true  and  affectionate  regard  which  they  have 
always  shown  towards  their  Episcopal  brethren  in  America. 

We  are  now  enabled  to  assure  you,  that  nothing  is  nearer 
to  our  hearts  than  the  wish  to  promote  your  spiritual  wel- 
fare, to  be  instrumental  in  procuring  ior  you  the  complete 
exercise  of  our  holy  religion,  and  the  enjoyment  of  that 
ecclesiastical  constitution,  which  we  believe  to  be  truly 
af)ostolical,  and  for  which  you  express  so  unreserved  a 
veneration. 

We  are  therefore  happy  to  be  informed,  that  this  pious 
design  is  not  likely  to  receive  any  discountenance  from  the 
civil  powers  under  which  you  live;  and  we  desire  you  to  be 
persuaded,  that  we,  on  our  parts,  will  use  our  best  endeav- 
ours, which  we  have  good  reason  to  hope,  will  be  successful, 
to  acquire  a  legal  capacity  of  complying  with  the  prayer  of 
your  address. 

With  these  seiTtiments  we  are  disposed  to  make  every 
allowance  which  candour  can  suggest  for  the  difficulties  of 
your  situation;  but,  at  the  same  time,  we  cannot  help  being 
afraid,  that,  in  the  proceedings  of  your  convention,  some 
alterations  may  have  been  adopted  or  intended,  which  those 
difficidties  do  not  seem  to  justify. 

Those  alterations  are  not  mentioned  in  your  address, 
and,  as  our  knowledge  of  them  is  no  more  than  what  has 
rf'ached  us  through  private  and  less  certain  channels,  we 

38 


298  Appendix — Yo.  7. 

hope  you  will  think  it  just,  both  to  you  and  to  ourselves,  if 
we  wait  for  an  explanation. 

For  while  we  are  anxious  to  give  every  proof,  not  only 
of  our  brotherly  affection,  but  of  our  facility  in  forwarding 
your  wishes,  we  cannot  but  be  extremely  cautious,  lest  we 
should  be  the  instruments  of  establishing  an  ecclesiastical 
system  which  will  be  called  a  branch  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, but  afterwards  may  possibly  appear  to  have  departed 
from  it  essentially,  either  in  doctrine  or  in  discipline. 

In  tbe  mean  time,  we  heartily  commend  you  to  God's 
holy  protection,  and  are,  your  affectionate  brethren, 

J.  ROCHESTER,  T.  CAN TUAR, 

R.  WORCESTER,  W.  EBOR, 

I.  OXFORD,  R.  LONDON, 

I.EXETER,  W.  CHICHESTER, 

THO.  LINCOLN,  C.  r>ATH  &  WELLS, 

JOHN  BANGOR,  S.  ST.  ASAPH, 

I.  LICHFIELD  <fc  COVENTRY, 

S.  GLOUCESTER,  S.  SARUM, 

E.  ST.  D/VVID'S,  J.  PETERBOROUGH, 

CHR.  BRISTOL,  JAMES  ELY. 

To  the  Reverend  and  Honourahle  the  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  sundry  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  Philadelphia. 


No.  7.    Page  120. 

A  Memorial  from  the  Convention  in  NeiD- Jersey,  to  the  Ge- 
neral Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  to  he  held  in  the  City  of  Phila- 
delphia in  June  next. 

The  Memorial  of  the  Convention  of  the  said  Church  in 
New-Jersey,  now  held  in  the  City  of  Perth-Amboy, 

Respectfully  showeth. 

That  your  memorialists  have  unanimously  approved  of 
the  alterations  in  the  liturgy  as  they  ap|)ear  in  the  new 
Prayer  Book,  to  render  it  consistent  with  the  American 
revolution  and  tlie  constitutions  of  the  respective  states,  as 
made  and  concluded  on  by  the  late  General  Convention  of 
said  Church,,  held  at  Philadelphia  in  September  and  Octo- 


Appendix— No.  7.  299 

ixsr  last;   ihey  being  satisfactory  and   agreeable  to  their 
M'ish. 

They  have  also  approved  of  their  plan  for  obtaining 
consecration  of  bishops;  and  pursuant  to  their  recommen- 
dation, have  appointed  a  committee  to  correspond  with  the 
English  bishops  for  that  purpose. 

They  have  also,  with  great  pleasure,  considered  their  ad- 
dress to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  which  your  memorialists  are  of  opinion,  was  properly 
calculated  to  obtain  the  end  proposed. 

But  it  is  with  t!ie  greatest  concern  they  are  constrained 
to  remark,  that  the  other  proceedings  of  the  said  convention, 
in  their  opinion,  have  an  undoubted  tendency  to  prolong,  if 
not  entirely  prevent,  the  obtaining  the  prayer  thereof.  In 
this  opinion  your  memorialists  conceive  they  are  supported 
by  the  answer  of  the  said  venerable  bishops,  with  a  copy 
of  which  they  have  been  favoured  during  their  sitting  at 
this  place ;  for  which  reason,  among  others,  they  did  not 
ratify,  but  disapproved  of  the  other  parts  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  said  late  General  Convention. 

Your  memorialists  do  not  question  the  right  of  every 
national  or  independent  Church,  to  make  such  alterations, 
from  time  to  time,  in  the  mode  of  its  public  worship,  as 
upon  mature  consideration  may  be  found  expedient;  but 
they  doubt  the  right  of  any  order  or  orders  of  men  in  an 
Episcopal  Church,  without  a  bishop,  to  make  any  alterations 
not  warranted  by  immediate  necessity ;  especially  such  as 
not  only  go  to  the  mode  of  its  worship,  but  also  to  its  doc- 
trines. Wherefore  your  memorialists  cannot  forbear  re- 
marking, that  in  their  oj)inion,  ail  unnecessary  alterations 
must  be  unseasonable  and  impolitic,  and  v*^ill  prove  highly 
detrimental  to  the  Church  in  general. 

Your  memorialists  cannot  approve  of  the  said  late  General 
Convention  having  published,  in  the  manner  they  have,  the 
new  Book  of  Common  Prayer  as  altered,  with  the  psalms 
and  calendar  transposed  and  changed  by  their  committee, 
without  their  revision  and  express  approbation ;  but  since 
they  have  done  so,  and  if  it  was  proper  to  have  been  con- 
sidered, your  memorialists  have  to  regret,  that  the  same 
was  not  sooner  published,  that  they  might  have  been  enabled 
to  have  declared  the  sentiments  of  their  constituents  as  well 
as  their  own.  The  prejudices  and  prepossessions  of  man- 
kind in  favour  of  old  customs,  especially  in  rehgious  matters, 
are  generally  so  strong  as  to  require  great  delicacy  and 
caution  in  the  introduction  of  any  alterations  or  innovations. 


300  Appendix — No.  T. 

although  manifestly  tor  the  hcttcr ;  which  was  aUa  one 
reason  why  they  could  not  at  this  time  ratify  the  alterations 
so  unnecessarily  made ;  and  they  are  very  aj)|)rehensive, 
that  until  alterations  can  he  made  consistent  with  the  cus- 
toms of  the  primitive  Church,  and  with  the  rules  of  th« 
Church  of  England,  from  which  it  is  our  hoast  to  have 
descended,  a  ratification  of  them  would  create  great  un- 
easiness in  the  minds  of  many  members  of  the  Church,  and 
in  great  probability  cause  dissensions  and  schisms.  Al- 
though they  may  not  disapprove  of  all  the  alterations  made 
in  the  said  new  book,  yet  they  have  to  regret  the  unscason- 
ableness  and  irregularity  of  them. 

Your  memorialists,  having  an  anxious  desire  of  ce- 
menting, perpetuating,  and  extending  the  union  so  hap- 
pily begun  in  the  Church,  with  all  deference  and  sub- 
mission, humbly  request  and  entreat  the  said  General 
Convention,  now  soon  to  meet,  that  they  will  revise  the 
proceedings  of  the  said  late  convention  and  their  aforesaid 
committee,  and  remove  every  cause  that  may  have  exciteil 
any  jealousy  or  fear,  that  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  have  any  intention  or  desire 
essentially  to  depart,  either  in  doctrine  or  discipline,  from 
the  Church  of  England  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  convince 
the  world  that  it  is  their  wish  and  intention,  to  maintain 
the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as  now  held  by  the  Church 
of  England,  and  to  adhere  to  the  litingy  of  the  said 
Clmrch  as  far  as  shall  be  consistent  with  the  American 
revolution,  and  the  constitution  of  the  respective  states; 
thereby  removing  every  obstacle  in  the  way  of  obtaining 
the  consecration  of  such  and  so  many  persons  to  the  Epis- 
copal character  as  shall  render  our  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment complete,  and  secure  to  tlie  Episcopalians  in  America, 
and  to  their  descendants,  a  succession  of  that  necessary 
order:  And  that  they  will  use  all  means  in  their  power 
to  promote  and  perpetuate  harmony  and  unanimity  among 
ourselves,  and  with  the  said  Church  of  England  as  a  mother 
or  sister  Church,  and  with  every  Protestant  Cliurch  in  the 
universe. 

By  order  of  the  convention, 

AKRAIIAM  JJEACII,  President. 
Perth- Anihoi/,  May  19,  1786. 


Aj^pcndix — No.  8.  ,*Jftl 

]\o.  S.    Page  1-20. 

Second  Address  io  tJie  English  F relates. 

'To  the  Most  Reverend  and  Ri'j;ht  Reverend  Fathers  in  God^ 
the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  Eni^land. 

Most  Worthy  and  Venerable  Prelate^^, 

We,  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  the  Protestant  J'^pis- 
<*opal  Church  in  the  states  of  New-York,  New-Jcrsev, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  JSoutii- 
■Carolina,  have  received  the  friendly  and  alfectionate  letter 
which  your  lordships  did  us  the  honour  to  write  on  the  24th 
<lay  of  February,  and  for  which  we  request  you  to  accept 
our  sincere  and  grateful  acknowledgments. 

It  gives  us  pleasure  to  be  assured,  that  the  success  of  our 
application  will  probably  meet  with  no  greater  obstacles 
than  what  have  arisen  froni  doubts  respecting  the  extent  of 
the  alterations  we  have  made  and  proposed;  and  we  are 
happy  to  learn,  that  as  no  political  impediments  oppose  us 
here,  those  which  at  jjresent  exist  in  England  may  be  re- 
moved. 

While  doubts  remain  of  our  continuing  to  hold  the  same 
essential  articles  of  faith  and  discipline  with  the  Church  of 
England,  we  acknowledge  the  propriety  of  suspending  a 
compliance  with  our  request. 

We  are  unanimous  and  explicit  in  assuring  your  lord- 
ships, that  we  neither  have  departed  nor  ])ropose  to  depart 
from  the  doctrines  of  your  Church.  V^'e  have  retained  the 
same  discipline  and  forms  of  worship,  as  far  as  was  consist- 
ent with  our  civil  constitutions ;  and  we  have  made  no 
alterations  or  omissions  in  the  iJook  of  Common  Prayer, 
but  such  as  that  consideration  prescribed,  and  such  as  were 
calculated  to  remove  objections,  which  it  appeared  to  us 
more  conducive  to  union  and  general  content  to  obviate, 
than  to  dispute.  It  is  well  known,  that  many  great  and 
pious  men  of  the  Church  of  England  have  long  wished  for 
a  revision  of  the  liturgy,  which  it  was  deemed  imprudent  to 
hazard,  lest  it  might  become  a  precedent  for  repeated  and 
improper  alterations.  This  is  with  us  the  proper  season 
for  such  a  revision.  We  are  now  settling  and  ordering  the 
affairs  of  our  Church,  and  if  wisely  done,  we  shall  have 
reason  to  promise  ourselves  all  the  advantages  that  cun 
result  from  stability  and  union. 


302  Appemlix—No.  8. 

AVe  are  anxious  to  complete  our  Episcopal  system  by 
means  of  the  Church  of  England.  We  esteem  and  prefer 
it,  and  with  gratitude  acknowledge  the  patronage  and  fa- 
vours for  which,  while  connected,  we  have  constantly  been 
indebted  to  that  Church.  These  considerations,  added  to 
that  of  agreement  in  faith  and  worship,  press  us  to  repeat 
our  former  request,  and  to  endeavour  to  remove  your  pre- 
sent hesitation,  by  sending  you  our  proposed  ecclesiastical 
constitution  and  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

These  documents,  we  trust,  will  aftbrd  a  full  answer  to 
every  question  that  can  arise  on  the  subject.  We  consider 
your  lordship's  letter  as  very  candid  and  kind;  we  repose 
full  confidence  in  the  assurances  it  gives  ;  and  that  confi- 
dence, together  with  the  liberality  and  Catholicism  of  your 
venerable  body,  leads  us  to  flatter  ourselves,  that  you  will 
not  disclaim  a  branch  of  your  Church  merely  for  having 
been  in  your  lordship's  opinion,  if  that  should  be  llie  case, 
pruned  rather  more  closely  than  its  separation  made  abso- 
lutely necessary. 

We  have  only  to  add,  that  as  our  Church  in  sundry  of 
these  states  have  already  proceeded  to  the  election  of  per- 
sons to  be  sent  for  consecration,  and  others  may  soon  pro- 
ceed to  the  same,  we  pray  to  be  favoured  with  as  speedy  an 
answer  to  this,  our  second  address,  as  in  your  great  good- 
ness you  were  pleased  to  give  to  our  former  one. 
We  are. 

With  great  and  sincere  respect, 

Most  worthy  and  venerable  prelates, 
Your  obedient,  and 

Very  liumble  servants,* 

In  Convention, 
Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  June  26,  1780. 


*  Signed  by  all  the  members. 


Appendix — No.  9.  303 


No.  9.     Page  120. 

Communications  from  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 

York. 

To  the  Committee  of  the  General  Convention  at  Philadelphia, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  JVhite,  president,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  the 
Rev,  Mr.  Provoost,  the  Honourable  James  Duane,  Samuel 
Powell,  and  Richard  Peters,  Esqs. 

Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen, 

Influenced  by  the  same  sentiments  of  fraternal  regard, 
expressed  by  the  archbishops  and  bishops  in  their  answer 
to  your  address,  we  desire  yoa  to  be  persuaded,  that  if  we 
have  not  yet  been  able  to  comply  with  your  request,  the  de- 
lay has  proceeded  from  no  tardiness  on  our  part.  The  only 
cause  of  it  has  been  the  uncertainty  in  which  we  were  left 
by  receiving  your  address  unaccompanied  by  those  commu- 
nications with  regard  to  your  liturgy,  articles,  and  ecclesias- 
tical constitution,  without  the  knowledge  of  which  we  could 
not  presume  to  apply  to  the  legislature,  for  such  powers  as 
were  necessary  to  the  completion  of  your  wishes.  The 
journal  of  the  convention,  and  the  first  part  of  your  liturgy, 
did  not  reach  us  till  more  than  two  months  after  our  receipt 
of  your  address  ;  and  we  were  not  in  possession  of  the  re- 
maining part  of  it  and  of  your  articles,  till  the  last  day  of 
April.  The  whole  of  your  communications  was  then,  with 
as  little  delay  as  possible,  taken  into  consideration,  at  a 
meeting  of  the  archbishops  and  fifteen  of  the  bishops,  being 
all  who  were  then  in  London  and  able  to  attend;  and  it  was 
impossible  not  to  observe,  with  concern,  that  if  the  essential 
doctrines  of  our  common  faith  were  retained,  less  respect 
however,  was  paid  to  our  liturgy  than  its  own  excellence^ 
and  your  declared  attachment  to  it,  had  led  us  to  expecto 
Not  to  mention  a  variety  of  verbal  alterations,  of  the  neces- 
sity or  propriety  of  which  we  are  by  no  means  satisfied,  we 
saw  with  grief,  that  two  of  the  confessions  of  our  Christian 
faith,  respectable  for  their  antiquity,  have  been  entirely  laid 
aside;  and  that  even  in  that  which  is  called  the  Apostles^ 
Creed,  an  article  is  omitted,  which  was  thought  necessary 
to  be  inserted,  with  a  view  to  a  particular  heresy,  in  a  very 
early  age  of  the  Church,  and  has  ever  since  had  the  vener- 
able sanction  of  universal  reception.  Nevertheless,  as  a 
proof  of  the  sincere  desire  which  we  feel  to  continue  in 


304  Appnulix—Xo.  \^. 

>:j)irittiMl  ooniniimion  with  tlie  lueinljcrs  of  your  Cimrcli  irt' 
AiiKM'ica,  and  to  coinpltstc  tlio  orclLTs  of  vour   ministry,  and 
tnistino-  that  the  coniniiinications  which  we  shall  make  to 
you  on  the  siihject  of  these  and  some  other  alterations,  wiK 
Jiave  their  desired  effect,  we  have,  even   under  those  cir- 
cumstances, prepared  a  bill  for  conveyitio-  to  us  iIh;  |)owers 
necessary  for  this  purpose.     It  will  in  a  few  days  he  pre- 
sented to  parliament,  and  we  have  the  best  reasons  to  liopo 
that  it  will  receive  the  assent  of  the  legislature.     This  bill 
\vill  enable  the  archbishof)s  and  bishops  to  give  J^piscopal 
consecration  to  the   persons   who  shall   be  reconimended, 
without  requiring  from  them  any  oaths  or  subscriptions  in^ 
consistent  with  the  situation  in  which  the  late  revolution  has 
placed  them  ;  upon  condition  that  the  full  satisfaction  of  the 
sufficiency  of  the  |)ersons  recommended,  whicii  you  offer  tt> 
us  in  your  aildress,  be  given  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops. 
You  will  doubtless  receive  it  as  a  mark  both  of  our  friendly 
disposition  toward  you,  and  of  our  desire  to  avoid  all  delay  oa 
this  occasion,  that  we  have  taken  this  earliest  opportunity 
of  conveying  to  you  this  intelligence,  and  that  we  proceed 
(as  supposing  ourselves  invested  with  that  power  which  for 
your  sukes  we  have  requested)  to  state  to  you  particularly 
the  several  heads  upon  which  that  satisfViction  which  you 
offer  will  be  accepted,  and  the  motle  in  which  it  may  be 
given.     The  anxiety  w  Inch  is  show  n  by  the  Church  of  Eng-' 
land  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of  unqualified  persons  into 
even  the  inferior  offu;es  of  our  ministry,  confirms  our  own 
sentiments,  and  points  it  out  to  be  our  duty,  very  earnestly 
to  require  the  most  decisive  proofs  of  the  qualifications  of 
tliose  who  may  be  offered   for  admission   to  that  order,  to 
which  the   superintendence  of  those  offices   is  committed. 
At  our  several  ordinations  of  a  deacon  and  a  priest,  the  can- 
didate submits  himself  to  the  examination  of  the  bishop  us 
to  his  proficienc}  in  learning;  he  gives  the  proper  security 
of  his  soundness  in  the  faith  by  the  subscriptions  which  are 
made  previously  necessary  ;  he  is  required  to  bring  testi- 
monials of  his  virtuous  conversation  during  the  three  preced- 
ing years;  and  that  no  mode  of  inquiry  may  be  omitted, 
public  notice  of  his  offering  himself  to  be  ordained  is  given 
in  the  parish  church  where  he  resides  or  ministers,  and  the 
people  are  solemnly  called  ujion   to  declare,  if  they  know 
any  impediment  for  the  which  he  ought  not  to  be  admitted. 
At  the  time  of  ordination  too,  the  same  solemn  call  is  made 
on  the  congregation  then  present. 

Examination,  subscription,  and  testimonials  are  not  in- 


Appendix — No.  9.  305 

jleeil  repeated  at  the  consecration  of  an  English  bishop,  l)e- 
cau.sc  tlie  person  to  be  consecrated  has  added  to  the  secu- 
rities given  at  his  former  ordinations,  that  sanction  which 
aris^es  from  his  having  constantly  lived  and  exercised  his 
ministry  under  tlie  eyes  and  observation  of  his  country. 
But  the  o!)jects  of  our  present  consideration  are  very  differ- 
ently circumstanced ;  their  sutiiciency  in  learning,  the  sound- 
ness of  their  faith,  and  the  purity  of  their  manners,  are  not 
matters  of  notoriety  here;  means  therefore  must  be  found 
to  satisfy  the  archbisliop  who  consecrates,  and  the  bishops 
who  present  them,  that,  in  the  words  of  our  Church,  "  They 
be  apt  and  meet  for  their  learning  and  godly  conversation, 
to  exercise  their  ministry  duly  to  the  honour  of  God,  and 
the  edifying  of  his  Church,  and  to  be  wholesome  examples 
and  patterns  to  the  flock  of  Christ." 

With  regard  to  the  tirst  qualification,  sufficiency  in  good 
learning,  we  ai)prehend  that  the  subjecting  a  person  who 
is  to  be  admitted  to  the  office  of  a  bishop  in  the  Church,  to 
that  examination  which  is  required  previous  to  the  ordina- 
tion of  priests  and  deacons,  might  lessen  that  reverend 
estimation  which  ought  never  to  be  separated  from  the 
Episcopal  character  :  we  therefore  do  not  require  any  far- 
tiier  satisfaction  on  this  point,  than  will  be  given  to  us  by 
the  forms  of  testimonials  in  the  annexed  paper;  fully  trust- 
ing that  those  who  sign  them  will  be  well  aware,  how  greatly 
incompetence  in  this  resjjcct  must  lessen  the  weight  and 
authority  of  the  bishop,  and  affect  the  credit  of  the  Episcopal 
Chin-ch. 

Under  the  second  head,  that  of  subscription,  our  desire 
is  to  require  that  subscription  only  to  be  repeated,  which 
yon  have  already  been  called  upon  to  make  by  the  tenth 
article  of  your  ecclesiastical  constitution.  But  we  should 
forget  the  duty  which  we  owe  to  our  own  Church,  and  act 
inconsistently  with  that  sincere  regard  which  we  bear  to 
yours,  if  we  were  not  explicit  in  declaring,  that,  after  the 
disposition  we  have  shown  to  comply  with  the  prayer  of 
your  address,  we  think  it  now  incumbent  upon  you  to  use 
your  utmost  exertions  also  for  the  removal  of  any  stumbling- 
block  of  offence,  which  may  possibly  prove  an  obstacle  to 
the  success  of  it.  We  therefore  most  earnestly  exhort  you, 
that  previously  to  the  time  of  your  making  such  subscription, 
you  restore  to  its  integrity  the  Apostles'  Creed,  in  which 
you  have  omitted  an  article  merely,  as  it  seems,  from  mis- 
apprehension of  the  sense  in  which  it  is  understood  by  our 
Church  ;  nor  can  we  help  adding,  that  we  hope  you  will 

39' 


30G  Appendix — Xu.  9. 

think  it  but  a  decent  proof  of  the  attaciiinent  which  you* 
profess  to  the  services  of  your  liturgy,  to  give  to  the  other 
two  creeds  a  place  in  your  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  even 
though  the  use  of  them  shoukl  be  left  discretional.  We 
should  be  inexcusable  too,  if  at  the  time  when  you  are  re- 
questing the  establishment  of  bishops  in  your  Church,  we 
(lid  not  strongly  represent  to  you  that  the  eighth  article  of 
your  ecclesiastical  constitution  appears  to  us  to  be  a  degra- 
dation of  the  clerical,  and  still  more  of  the  Episcopal 
character.  We  persuade  ourselves,  that  in  your  ensuing 
convention,  some  alteration  will  be  thought  necessary  in 
this  article,  before  this  reaches  you;  or,  if  not,  that  due 
attention  will  be  given  to  it  in  consequence  of  our  repre- 
sentation. 

On  the  third  and  last  head,  which  respects  purity  of  man- 
ners, the  reputation  of  the  Church,  both  in  England  and 
America,  and  the  interest  of  our  common  Christianity,  is  so 
deeply  concerned  in  it,  that  we  feel  it  our  indispensable 
duty  to  provide,  on  this  subject,  the  most  ellectual  securities. 
It  is  presumed,  that  the  same  previous  public  notice  of  the 
intention  of  the  person  to  be  consecrated  will  be  given  in 
the  Church  where  he  resides  in  America,  for  the  same  rea- 
sons, and  therefore  nearly  in  the  same  form,  with  that  used 
in  England  before  our  ordinations.  The  call  upon  the 
persons  present  at  the  time  of  consecration,  must  be  deemed 
of  little  use  before  a  congregation  composed  of  those  to 
whom  the  person  to  be  consecrated  is  unknown.  The  tes- 
timonials, signed  by  persons  living  in  England,  admit  of 
reference  and  examination,  and  the  characters  of  those  who 
give  them  are  subject  to  scrutiny,  and,  in  cases  of  criminal 
deceit,  to  punishment.  In  j)roportion  as  these  circum- 
tances  arc  less  applicable  to  testimonials  from  America, 
those  testimonials  moat  be  more  explicit,  and  supported  by 
a  greater  number  of  signatures.  We  therefore  think  it  ne- 
cessary that  the  several  persons,  candidates  for  Episcopal 
consecration,  should  bring  tons  both  a  testimonial  from  the 
General  Convention  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  with  as  many 
signatures  as  can  be  obtained,  and  a  more  particular  one 
from  the  respective  conventions  in  those  states  which  re- 
commend thorn.  It  will  appear  from  the  tenour  of  the  let- 
ters testimonial  used  in  England,  a  form  of  which  is  an- 
nexed, that  the  ministers  who  sign  them  bear  testimony  to 
the  qualifications  of  the  candidates  on  their  own  personal 
knowledge.  Such  a  testimony  is  not  to  be  expected  from 
ihe  members  of  the  General  Convention  of  the  Episcopal 


Appendix — No.  9.  307 

C!hurch  in  America,  on  this  occasion.  We  think  it  sufficient, 
therefore,  that  tiiey  declare  they  know  no  ini{3edinient,  birt 
believe  the  jierson  to  be  consecrated,  is  of  a  virtuous  life 
and  sound  faith.  We  have  sent  you  such  a  form  as  appears 
to  us  proper  to  be  used  for  that  purpose.  More  specific 
declarations  must  be  made,  by  the  members  of  the  conven- 
tion in  each  state  from  which  the  persons  offered  for  con- 
secration are  rcsj)ectiveiy  recommended.  Tlieir  personal 
knowledge  of  them  there  can  be  no  doubt  of.  \Ve  trust, 
therefore,  they  will  have  no  objection  to  the  adoption  of  the 
form  of  a  testimonial  which  is  annexed,  and  drawn  up  on 
the  same  principles,  and  containing  the  same  attestations 
of  personal  knowledge  with  that  above  mentioned,  as  re- 
quired previously  to  our  ordinations.  We  trust  we  shall 
receive  these  testimonials  signed  by  such  a  majority  in  each 
convention  that  recommend,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  of  the  fit- 
ness of  the  candidates  upon  the  minds  of  those  whose  con- 
sciences are  concerned  in  the  consecration  of  them. 

Thus  much  we  have  thought  it  right  to  communicate  to 
you  without  reserve  at  present,  intending  to  give  you  fur- 
ther information  as  soon  as  we  are  able.  In  the  mean  time, 
"ive  pray  God  to  direct  your  counsels  in  this  very  weighty 
matter,  and  are,  Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen,  your  affec- 
tionate brethren, 

J.  CANTUARo 
W.  EBOR. 


For?n  of  a  Testimonial  for  Fricsl^s  Orders  in  England. 

To  the  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God ,  by  Divine  Per- 
mission Lord  Bishop  of . 

We,  whose  names  are  here  underwritten,  testify  from 
our  personal  knowledge  of  the  life  and  behaviour  of  ^.  J3., 
for  the  space  of  three  years  last  past,  that  he  hath,  during 
that  time,  lived  piously,  soberly,  and  honestly:  Nor  hath 
he  at  any  time,  as  far  as  we  know  or  believe,  written, 
taught,  or  held,  any  thing  contrary  to  the  doctrine  or  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  of  England.  And,  moreover,  we  think 
him  a  person  worthy  to  be  admitted  to  the  sacred  order  of 
priest.     In    witness   whereof,  we   have  hereunto   set  our 

hands.     Dated  the day  of ,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord . 


308  Appendix — Nu.  0. 


Testimonij  from  the  General  Cunvcntion. 

We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  fully  sensible  \\(ax 
important  it  is  that  the  sacred  office  ot"  a  bishop  should  not 
be  unworthily  conferred,  and  tirmly  persuaded  that  it  is  our 
duty  to  bear  our  testimony  on  this  solemn  occasion  without 
partiality  or  affection,  do,  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God, 
testify,  that  A.  B.  is  not,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  justly 
liable  to  evil  report,  either  for  error  in  religion  or  for 
viciousness  of  life  ;  and  that  we  do  not  know  or  believe 
there  is  any  impediment  or  notable  crime,  on  account  of 
Avhich  he  ought  not  to  be  consecrated  to  that  holy  office, 
but  that  he  hath  led  his  life,  for  the  three  years  last  past, 
piously,  soberly,  and  honestly. 


Testimony  from  the  Members  of  the  Convention  in  the  State 
from  whence  the  Person  is  recommended  for  Consecration. 

We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  fully  sensible  how 
important  it  is  that  the  sacred  ollice  of  a  bishop  should  not 
be  unworthily  conferred,  and  firmly  persuaded  that  it  is  our 
duty  to  bear  testimony  on  this  solemn  occasion  witiiout 
partiality  or  affection,  do,  in  the  presence  of  Almiglity  God, 
testify,  thatyl.  B.  is  not,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  justly 
liable  to  evil  report  either  for  error  in  religion  or  for 
viciousness  of  life ;  and  tliat  we  do  not  know  or  believe 
there  is  any  impediment  or  notable  crime  for  which  he 
ouglit  not  to  be  consecrated  to  that  holy  office.  We  dQ, 
moreover,  jointly  and  severally  declare,  that  having  per- 
sonally known  him  for  three  years  last  past,  we  do  in  our 
consciences  believe  him  to  be  of  such  sufficiency  in  good 
learning,  such  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  of  such  virtuous 
and  pure  manners  and  godly  conversation,  that  he  is  apt 
and  meet  to  exercise  the  office  of  a  bishop,  to  the  honour 
of  God  and  the  edifying  of  his  Church,  and  to  be  an  vvhole- 
;3ome  example  to  the  flock  of  Christ. 


Appendix — Nu.  10.  30d 

INo.  10.  Page  120. 

iJumnmnicatiun  frum  the  Archbishop  of  Can/crhiin/.  • 

Canterbury',  July  4,  178C. 
To  the  Committee  of  the  General  Ccnvmiibn,  i^c.  ^;c. 

<3rENTLEMf:N, 

The  enclosed  act  being  now  passed,  I  have  the  satisfac- 
tion of  communicating  it  to  you.  It  is  accompanied  by  a 
copy  of  a  letter,  and  some  forms  of  testimonials,  which  I 
sent  you  by  tho  packet  of  last  month.  It  is  the  opinion 
here,  that  no  more  than  three  bisiiops  should  be  consecrated 
for  the  United  States  of  America ;  who  may  consecrate 
others  at  their  return,  if  more  be  found  necessary.  But 
whether  we  can  consecrate  any,  or  not,  must  yet  depend 
on  the  answers  we  may  receive,  to  what  we  have  written. 

1  am,  your  humble  servant, 

J.  CANTUAR. 


An  Act  to  cmpoicer  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the 
Archbishop  of  York,  for  the  Time  being,  to  Consecrute  to 
the  Office  of  a  Bishop,  Persons  being  Subjects  or  Citizms 
of  Countries  out  of  his  Majesty'' s  Dominions. 

Whereas,  by  the  laws  of  this  realm  no  person  can  be 
^'onsecrated  to  the  office  of  a  bishop,  without  the  king's 
license  for  his  election  to  that  office,  and  the  royal  mandate 
under  the  great  seal  for  his  contirmation  and  consecration: 
And,  whereas  every  person  who  shall  be  consecrated  to  the 
said  office,  is  required  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and 
su})remacy,  and  also  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  arch- 
bishop :  And,  whereas  there  are  divers  persons  subjects  or 
citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's  dominions,  inhabit- 
ing and  residing  within  the  said  countries,  vv'ho  profess  the 
public  worship  of  Almighty  God  according  to  the  principles 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  who,  in  order  to  provide  a 
regular  succession  of  ministers  for  the  service  of  their 
Church,  are  desirous  of  having  certain  of  the  subjects  or 
citizens  of  those  countries  consecrated  bishops,  according 
to  the  form  of  consecration  in  the  Church  of  England :  Be 
it  enacted  by  the  king's  most  excellent  majesty,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  lords  spirit uai  and  (cm- 
poralj  and  commons  in  this  present  parliament  assembled, 


310  Appendix— Xo.  10. 

ami  by  the  authority  of  tlic  same,  that  from  and  after  tlie 
passing  of  this  act,  it  shall  and  may  be  hiwful  to  and  for 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  tlie  archbisliop  of  York, 
for  the  time  being,  together  with  such  other  bisho|)s  as  they 
shall  call  to  their  assistance,  to  consecrate  persons  being 
subjects  or  citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's  do- 
minions, bishops  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  without  the 
king's  license  for  their  election,  or  the  royal  mandate  under 
the  great  seal  for  their  confirmation  and  consecration,  and 
without  requiring  them  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and 
supremacy,  and  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  archbishop 
for  the  time  being.  Provided  always,  that  no  persons  shall 
be  consecrated  bishops  in  the  manner  herein  provided,  until 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  archbishop  of  York, 
for  the  time  beins,  shall  have  first  applied  for,  and  obtained 
his  majesty's  license,  by  warrant  under  his  royal  signet  and 
sign  manual,  authorizing  and  empowering  him  to  perform 
such  consecration,  and  expressing  the  name  or  names  of 
the  persons  so  to  be  consecrated ;  nor  until  the  said  arch- 
bishop has  been  fully  ascertained  of  their  sufficiency  in  good 
learning,  of  the  soundness  of  their  faith,  and  of  the  purity 
of  their  manners.  Provided  also,  and  be  it  hereby  declared, 
that  no  person  or  persons  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a 
bishop  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person  or  persons 
deriving  their  consecration  from  or  under  any  bishops  so 
consecrated,  nor  any  person  or  persons  admitted  to  the 
order  of  deacon  or  priest  by  any  bishop  or  bishops  so  con- 
secrated, or  by  the  successor  or  successors  of  any  bishop 
or  bishops  so  consecrated,  shall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exer- 
cise his  or  their  respective  office  or  offices  within  his 
majesty's  dominions.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  further 
enacted,  that  a  certificate  of  such  consecration  shall  be  given 
under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  archbishop  who  consecrates, 
containing  the  name  of  the  person  so  consecrated,  with  the 
addition  as  well  of  the  country  whereof  he  is  a  subject  or 
citizen,  as  of  the  Church  in  which  he  is  appointed  bishop, 
and  the  further  description  of  his  not  having  taken  the  said 
oaths,  being  exempted  from  the  obligation  of  so  doing  by 
virtue  of  this  act. 


Appendix — No.  li.  311 

No.  11.  Page  122. 
Address  to  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York. 

Most  Worthy  and  Venerable  Prelates, 

In  pursuance  of  your  graces'  communications  to  the 
standing  conimittee  of  our  Church,  received  by  the  June 
packet,  and  the  letter  of  liis  grace  the  arclibisliop  of  Can- 
terbury, of  July  the  4th,  enclosing  the  act  of  parliament, 
"  to  empower  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  arch- 
bishop of  York,  for  the  time  being,  to  consecrate  to  the 
office  of  a  bishop,  persons  being  subjects  or  citizens  of 
countries  out  of  his  majesty's  dominions,"  a  General  Con- 
vention, now  sitting,  have  the  honour  of  offering  their 
unanimous  and  hearty  thanks  for  the  continuance  of  your 
Christian  attention  to  this  Church  ;  and  particularly  for 
your  having  so  speedily  acquired  a  legal  capacity,  of  com- 
plying with  the  prayer  of  our  former  addresses. 

We  have  taken  into  our  most  serious  and  deliberate 
consideration,  the  several  matters  so  affectionately  recom- 
mended to  us  in  those  confimunications,  and  whatever  could 
be  done  towards  a  comt)liance  with  your  fatherly  wishes 
and  advice,  consistently  with  our  local  circumstances,  and 
the  peace  and  unity  of  our  Church,  hath  been  agreed  to; 
as,  we  trust,  will  appear  from  the  enclosed  act  of  our  con- 
vention, which  we  have  the  honour  to  transmit  to  you, 
together  with  the  journal  of  our  proceedings. 

We  are,  with  great  and  sincere  respect, 
Most  worthy  and  venerable  prelates, 
Your  obedient  and  very  humble  servants, 
(By  order,) 

SAMUEL  PROVOOST,  Pres'i. 

In  General  Convention, 
At   Wilmington,  in  the  State  of  Delaware, 
October  nth,  1786. 


312  Appendix— Xo.  V^. 


No.  12.  Page  123. 

A   Tjciter  from    Granville    Sharp,  ]2sq.    to    Dr.  Benjamin 
Franklin,  nith  Extracts  of  Letters, 

Exlracf  of  a  Tjctter  from  Granville  Sharp  to  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury/,  dated  I3th  September,  1785. 

"  All  these  circumstances  prove  that  the  present  time  is 
very  important  and  critical  for  the  promotion  of  the  interests 
iuu\  future  extension  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America, 
and  that  no  time  should  he  lost  in  ohtaining  authority  for 
the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England  to  dispense  with 
the  oaths  of  allegiance  in  the  consecration  of  bishops  for 
fore/L^n  Churches,  that  they  may  be  restored  to  their  un- 
(jucstionable  right  as  Christian  bishops  to  extend  the  Epis- 
copal Church  of  Christ  all  over  the  world." 

"  An  immediate  interference  is  become  the  more  neces- 
sary, not  only  on  account  of  the  pretensions  of  Dr.  Scabury, 
and  the  nonjuring  bishops  of  Scotland,  (to  which,  however, 
I  hope  my  letters  will  have  given  a  timely  check)  but  also 
to  guard  against  the  presumption  of  Mv.  Wesley  and  other 
Methodists ;  who,  it  seems,  have  sent  over  some  persons 
under  the  name  o^ superintendents,  with  an  assumed  autho- 
rity to  ordain  priests,  as  if  they  were  really  invested  with 
Episcopal  authority.'''' 

"  Some  accounts  of  this  were  read  to  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel  in  3Iay  last,  from  the  letters  of 
their  missionaries;  and  I  have  since  heard  that  some 
Methodistical  clergymen  have  procured  consecration  from 
the  Moravian  Churches,  which  the  latter  had  received  from 
the  bishops  of  Poland.  These  attempts  of  the  sectaries 
prove,  however,  that  they  perceive  among  the  Americans 
an  increasins;  inclination  towards  Episcopal  government,  of 
which  they  want  to  take  an  undue  advantage  ;  and  conse- 
quently they  prove,  also,  that  the  exertions  of  every  sincere 
friend  to  the  Church  of  England  are  peculiarly  necessary  at 
this  time  to  counteract  them,  and  to  facilitate  the  communi- 
cation of  a  pure  and  irreprehensible  Episcopacy  to  America, 
by  removing  the  obstacles  which  at  present  restrain  the 
archbishops  <ind  bishops  of  England,  from  extending  the 
Church  of  England  beyond  the  bounds  of  English  govern- 
ment.'^ 

"  I  should  also  Inform  your  grace,  that  America  is  not 


Appendix— No.  \t  $"l.f 

llie  only  part  whoroin  Protestant  Epi.sco])acy  is  likely  to  he 
extended,  when  the  rights  of  election  are  better  understood  : 
for  had  1  been  prepared,  in  the  year  1767,  on  this  point,  as 
I  am  at  present,  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  a  Protestant 
Episcopal  Chnrch  would  have  been  promoted  in  Holland, 
and  in  several  [jurts  of  Germany  and  Switzerland,  long  be- 
fore this  lime." 

"  How  I  happened  to  be  concerned  in  so  important  an 
aflair,  (if  your  grace  shoidd  have  leisure  and  curiosity  to  be 
informed)  I  am  ready  to  communicate  on  receiving-  your 
eomnjands,"  <fcc. 


Exlract  of  a  Lefterfrovi  Granville  Sharp  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterhary,  dated  Xlfk  of  February,  1780. 

"  Since  I  had  t!ie  honour  of  speaking  to  your  grace  on 
this  subject,  I  have  perused  Dr.  Smith's  serm.on,  which  was 
preached  before  the  convention  at  Philadelphia  ;  and  though 
I  have  still  great  fears  about  the  propriety  of  the  alterations 
tliey  have  made  in  the  liturgy,  yet  there  seems  to  be  some 
ground  to  hope  that  they  will  be  able  to  assign  a  reasonable 
excuse  for  the  changes,  without  giving  occasion  to  suspect 
any    want    of  belief    in    the  several    articles    which    they 
have  omitted;  for  Dr.  Smith  plainly  insinuates,  that  they 
proceeded  on  the  model  of  the  alterations  that  were  pro- 
posed to   the    English   convocation    in    16S9 ;    for    wliich, 
several    circutnstances   have    induced    me    to   entertain    a 
favourable  opinion.     In  looking  over  the  MS.  account  of 
Archbishop  Sharp's  life,  I  find  that  he  was  one  of  the  king's 
commissioners  for  that   business,   and  took   infinite  pains 
therein,  being  sensible  that  sow<?  alterations  might  bo  made 
with  advantage.    He  was  also  the  person  who  first  proposed, 
in  convocation,  that  Dr.  Tiliotson  should  be  appointed  pro- 
locutor, in  order  to  favour  the  intended  alterations.     Dr. 
Nichols  has  given  a  short  general  account  of  that  business 
m  his  ^Apparatus  ad  Defensionem  Ecclesicp  AnglicaTKe  f  but  I 
never   heard   that  the   transactions    at    length   were   ever 
printed  ;  and  therefore  am  surprised  to  find  that  the  conven- 
tion at  Philadelphia  had  a  full  account  of  th.at  important 
business  before  them  for  their  guidance.     Dr.  Nichols  highly 
commends  the  alterations  that  were  then  intended,  and  few 
men  were  better  qualified  to  be  competent  judges  of  that 
matter,     if  these  circumstances  be  duly  considered,  there 
seems    room   to  discriminate  between  the  motives  which 

40 


31  i  Append ix — \o,  l:i. 

niii^lit  indiine  llie  rom  ontlon  nl  I'liihuiolpliiii  to  make  sudv 
lari^c  siibstractioiis  iVoni  our  liturgy,  and  the  real  propriety; 
or  iinpiopriety  of  those  siihstiaclioiis,  at  least  so  far  tha!r 
the  latter  need  not  l>c  held  forth  as  a  ground  of  objection 
UjL^ainst  the  can<li<iatf;s  for  consecration,  if  in  other  respects 
ihc  candidates  themselves  should  l)e  found  unexcrpiionable, 
and  should  readily  profess  a  sound  and  unequivocal  belief 
in  the  fuiulamental  articles  of  our  faith  ;  for  this  will  surely 
justify  their  consecration  before  (iod  and  man;  and  more 
especially  if  they  will  previously  engage  and  promise,  that 
when  tiiey  have  received  authority,  they  will  nol  lay  hands 
on  any  man  except  on  the  like  Chrialian  conditions,  indepen- 
dent of  all  national  forms  and  rituals  of  mere  human  autho- 
rity, which  cannot  annul  the  necessity  of  maintaining  au 
orthodox  ministry  in  Christ's  Episcopal  Church,  howsoever 
the  governments  under  which  they  live,  should  think  proper 
to  model  the  public  forms  of  worship  for  their  respective 
jurisdictions.  And  therefore  I  beg  leave  huml)ly  to  submit 
to  your  grace,  that  if  any  notice  is  to  be  taken  of  the  late 
rejection  of  creeds  from  the  liturgy  m  your  grace's  intended 
answer  to  the  American  requisition,  whether,  instead  of 
stating  that  measure  H3  ajust  cause  of  refusal,  it  may  not  be 
more  advisable  to  mention  it  rather  as  n  /ust  cause  for  your 
exhorting  and  giving  them  timely  learning  not  to  send  over 
any  candidates  for  consecration,  hut  such  as  are  huncn  to  pro- 
fess a  sound  belief  in  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Christian 
faith?  and  more  particularly  in  the  scriptural  doctrine  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  and  in  the  real  personality  and  actual 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  Divine  Comforter  and  In- 
structor to  the  end  of  the  world?  For  these  necessary 
articles  of  faith  are  not  more  perverted  by  the  Sociniatis, 
than  by  a  sect  professing  principles  diametrically  opposite 
to  them,  1  mean  the  modern  Mysticks,  who  assert  that 
Christ  is  the  only  God;  though  the  effect  of  these  very  oppo- 
site tenets  is  precisely  the  same,  viz.  that  both  sects  are  led 
to  deny  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  therefore,  by 
what  spirit  they  are  soled,  we  may  fairly  judge  by  the  fruit*. 
Some  Americans  have  lately  adopted  these  strange  notions, 
which  is  the  reason  of  my  mentioning  them,"  &-c. 


Appendix — Xo.  12.  31& 

Letter  to  Dr.  Franklin. 

Old  Jewrij,  London^  Au^uhi  19,  1786. 

3Dear  Sir, 

Notliing-  coLikl  l}ave  been  niore  truly  acceptable  to  me 
■tli.m  jour  excclipticy's obliging"  present  of  tlie  new  American 
Prayer  Book;  and  the  more  esi)ccialiy  as  1  had  the  happi- 
ness of  finding-  that  the  convention  have  retained,  in  the 
litany  and  otlier  prayers,  as  well  as  in  the  articles  of  re- 
ligion, an  ample  testimony  to  the  most  essential  doctrines 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  that  they  iiave  really  pro- 
ceeded upon  the  plan  laid  down  by  the  king's  commissioners 
in  1689,  of  whom  my  own  grandfather,  (afterwards  Arch- 
bishop Sharp,)  was  one,  who  took  a  very  active  part  in  that 
business,  though  jje  is  not  mentioned  in  the  preface  of  the 
new  Prayer  Book.  This  1  discovered  by  a  MS.  account  of 
my  grandfather's  life,  much  about  the  time  that  many  vague 
re[jorts  were  current  here,  of  immoderate  and  unjust ifiable 
changes  made  in  the  liturgy  by  the  American  convention; 
■for  the  Socinians  flattered  themselves  (through  a  mere  mis- 
take of  Dr.  Price,  in  a  note  which  he  had  added  to  Dr. 
Rush's  letter  of  October  25,  1785,  as  published  in  the  news- 
papers) that  the  proceedings  of  tlie  convention  had  been 
'■^similar''''  tothoseof  ojze  Episcopal  congregation  at  Boston, 
which  adopted  a  liturgy — '•'■formed  after  the  manner  of  Dr. 
Clarke  and  Mr.  Lindsei/.^'  These  reports  would  have  given 
me  much  more  uneasiness,  if  the  perusal  of  Dr.  Smith's 
sermon,  (preached  before  the  convention)  had  not  inchiced 
me  to  hope  that  the  plan  of  the  year  1689  would  really  be 
adopted  by  the  convention  as  a  model  of  proceeding;  and  I 
was  well  satisfied  that  the  said  plan  was  sufficiently  ortho- 
dox, because  I  was  confident,  that  if  it  had  been  otherwise, 
my  grandfather  would  not  have  endeavoured  to  promote  it. 
Nevertheless,  the  reports  of  Soeinianism  gave  great  oflfence 
to  many  worthy  people  here,  and  more  especially  to  the 
bishops,  who  had  been  sincerely  disposed  to  promote  the 
Church  of  America,  as  declared  in  my  former  letters;  but 
on  hearing  of  the  confident  reports  of  the  Socinians,  they 
seemed  to  give  up  all  hopes  of  being  able  to  hold  any  com- 
munication with  the  convention.  In  this  state  of  the  busi- 
ness, I  thought  it  my  duty  to  explain  in  writing  to  our 
worthy  primate,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  my  reasons 
*ibr  koinn-x  that  ihe  convention  would  be  able  to  assign  sucfe 


310  Appendix — A'o.  12. 

a  reasonable  c.tcuse  for  the  changes  they  were  reported  tu 
liave  made,  as  might  be  suflicient  to  remove  thai  ground  of 
objeclion  w^-ainst  the  candidates  for  consecration,  it',  in  other 
respects,  the  candidates  themselves  were  found  nncxceptioii- 
able.  An  extract  from  that  letter  1  have  enclosed  for  your 
excellency's  perusal,  dated  February  17,  hist ;  and  I  earn- 
estly entreated  that  the  bishops  here  might,  at  least,  be 
prepared  with  authority  to  dispense  with  the  oaths  in  giving 
consecration,  a  point  which  I  had  also  previously  solicited  in 
a  letter  dated  September  13, 1785.  As  the  convention  trans- 
mitted no  account  of  their  transactions,  when  they  wrote  to 
the  two  archbishops,  there  was  no  sufficient  evidence  for  a 
direct  confutation  of  the  reports  respecting  Socinianisrn  ; 
and  therefore  the  great  caution  and  reserve  expressed  in 
the  joint  answer  of  the  archbishops,  was  unquestionably 
right  and  perfectly  necessary,  under  such  a  state  of  iinccr- 
tainiij  respecting  Christian  doctrine! 

The  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  with  his  usual  condescen- 
sion and  politeness,  was  pleased  to  communicate  to  me, 
very  lately,  the  contents  of  that  letter,  as  also  the  proposed 
forms  of  testimonials  which  it  enclosed  :  and  howsoever 
these  may  be  received  by  the  convention,  I  am  bound  to 
acknowledge  my  hearty  approbation  of  them,  being  tho- 
roughly convinced  that  they  were  dictated  by  the  most  un- 
affected sincerity  of  heart,  and  (I  may  even  sny)  apostolical 
concern  for  the  promotion  of  the  true  Catholic  Church  in 
America. 

j\evertheless,  the  archbishops  have  not  yet  received  any 
acknowledgment  that  their  letter  has  reached  America, 
except  the  short  mention  of  it  in  your  excellency's  obliging 
letter  to  me.  Had  the  gentlemen  deputed  by  tlie  conven- 
tion to  correspond  with  the  archbishops,  thought  proper  to 
send  them  a  short  general  description  of  the  new  liturgy, 
with  some  account  also  of  the  plan  upon  which  it  was 
formed,  they  would  have  prevented  the  ai)prehensions  and 
suspicions  occasioned  by  the  late  reports  about  Socinianisni, 
against  which  the  liturgy  itself  bears  ample  testimony.  I 
had  hoped,  however,  that  nothing  would  have  been  omitted 
therein,  but  the  too  frequent  repetitions  of  our  liturgy  :  and 
that  [(more  creeds  than  one  had  been  considered  as  falling 
under  the  same  head  of  correction,  that,  at  least  the  JSicene 
Creed  might  have  been  appointed  to  be  used  instead  of  the 
common  creed,  on  some  particular  festivals,  as  Christmas 
4ay,  or  Trinity  Sunday,  with  a  discretionary  power  in  the 
minister  to  use  occasionally  the  Athanasian  Creed,  as  aji 


Appendix — No.  12.  *U7 

ithese  creeds  may  equally  be  proved  by  imqLiestioiiablc  testi- 
monies of  scripture.  Nevertheless,  the  resolution  expressed 
in  the  preface,  that  they  do  not  mean  to  separate  from  the 
Church  of  England  in  principles,  together  with  llie  unequi- 
vocal declarations  still  retained  in  the  new  liturgy,  of  the 
indispensable  faith  and  worship  due  io  the  iltrce  divine  per- 
sons (whose  existence  in  the  one  divine  nature  or  godhead  is 
so  clearly  revealed  in  scripture,  and  into  whose  religious 
service  we  are  equally  enlisted  by  the  l;aptismal  profession 
and  vows  being  made  expressly  in  the  iiauies  of  all  the 
three),  must  undoubtedly  give  sincere  satisfaction  to  all  true 
Christians,  notwithstanding  the  omission  of  several  other 
things  which  they  would  wish  to  have  been  also  retained. 
And,  therefore,  from  my  confidence  of  the  unexceptionable 
religious  character  of  the  Englisii  bishops  in  general  (with- 
out waiting  to  hear  their  sentiments  declared  by  themselves,) 
I  may  venture  to  repeat  what  I  asserted  in  my  former 
letters,  that  the  bishops  of  England  will  b.c  still  sincerely 
inclined  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
in  America,  and  to  maintain  an  ali'ectionate  communication 
with  them  as  sister  Churches,  j)rovided  that  the  gentlemen 
elected  to  be  sent  for  consecration  are  really  in  themselves 
tmexc€])tionahle :  and  I  have  the  satisfaction  to  inform  your 
excellency,  that  the  archbishops  have  already  prepared 
themselves  to  comply  with  the  requisition  of  the  American 
Churches,  by  obtaining  an  act  of  parliament  in  the  last 
session,  to  remove  tho  former  difliculty  about  the  oatbs,  a 
eopy  of  which  is  enclosed.  The  late  accounts  in  the  public 
papers,  that  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  Virginia  and  New- 
York  had  elected  candidates  for  the  Episcopal  office  in  tlieir 
respective  provinces,  gave  me  very  particular  satisfaction, 
because  1  had  understood  from  former  accounts,  that  the 
General  Convention  had  nojninated  ilie  candidates ;  which 
would  have  been  a  dangerous  precedent  of  infringement  on 
the  ancient  rights  of  the  clergy  and  people  in  each  province 
respectively,  to  elect  their  own  his/wps ;  and  I  should  have 
bad  still  much  more  sincere  satisfaction,  if  these  two  pro- 
vinces had  adopted  the  apostolical  mode  of  electing  tico 
unexceptionable  candidates  for  each  see,  whose  acceptance 
should  be  determined  by  lot,  as  revived  by  the  Spanisli 
bishops  in  the  council  o(  Barcelona,  (see  my  tract  on  Con- 
gregational Courts,  p.  89,  90,)  but  perhaps,  upon  the  whole, 
it  may  be  more  prudent  to  defer  tlie  decision  of  ike  lot,  until 
three  or  four  bishops  are  actually  resident  in  America; 
t^vho  can  then  more  effectually  examine  (as  their  apostolical 


313  Appendix — AV;.  13. 

duty  requires)  the  qualifications  ujitl  characters  of  the 
■^ilccted  candidates,  hy  caUing  upon  the  people,  publicly,  for 
information,  whetlier  any  just  exceptions  are  known,  bcfort: 
the  lot  is  cast,  because  even  a  legal  exception  would  seem  to 
be  made  too  late,  if  discovered  after  the  solemn  appeal  to 
divine  Providence  by  lot  and  previous  prayer  ;  for  in  such 
a  case  there  seems  to  be  no  alternative  :  nothing-  but  an 
luimble  submission  and  reliance  on  the  same  Frovideiice,  for 
all  the  future  consequences  of  the  decision,  whatever  they 
may  be;  unless  some  subsequent  misconduct  should  render 
the  interference  of  the  other  bishops  necessary. 

1  send  herewith  a  duplicate  of  my  letter  respecting  a 
paper  currency  ?iot  liable  to  depreciation,  which  was  sent  by 
the  Mediator,  Captain  Kennydy ;  and  I  remain  v/ith  true 
jespect  and  esteem,  dear  sir. 

Your  excellency's  most  obliged, 
Humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE  SHARP. 
His  Excellency  Benjamin  Franklin,  Esq. 
President  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 


IVo.  13.  Page  124. 

An  Act  of  the  General  Convention  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  States  of 
J^ew-York,  New- Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Deluvare,  and 
South-Carolina,  held  at  Wilmington,  in  the  State  of  Dela- 
ware, on  Wednesday,  the  11th  of  O-ctober,  17^6. 

Whereas,  at  a  General  Convention  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  sundry  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  viz.  New-A^)rk,  New-Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  ]>Luyland,  Virginia,  aiid  South- 
Carolina,  holdi;n  at  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  Tuesday 
liefore  the  feast  of  St.  Michael,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1785,  and  divers  subsequent  days,  it  was  agreed  and  de- 
clared, that  "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies 
of  the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land," should  be  continued  to  be  used  by  this  Church,  as 
the  same  was  altered  by  the  said  convention,  in  a  certaiH 
instrument  of  writing,  passed  by  their  authority,  entitled, 
-'*  Alterations  of  the   Liturgy  of  the  Protectant   Episcojnv! 


Appendix — No.  ]:j.  ,319 

f'lHirclj  in  tlie  United  States  of  America,  in  order  to  render 
the  isanie  conformable  to  ilie  American  llevohition  and  the 
('onslitiilions  of  the  respective  States:"  And  it  was  further 
agreed  and  declared,  that  the  Book  of  Comnjon  Prayer,  and 
Administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and 
Ceremonies  of  t!ie  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  tlie 
Church  of  England,  as  altered  by  an  instrument  of  writing, 
passed  under  the  authority  of  the  aforesaid  convention, 
entitled,  "Alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and 
Administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and 
Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the 
Church  of  England,  proposed  and  recommended  to  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica, should  he  used  in  this  Church,  when  the  same  should 
have  been  ratified  by  the  conventions  which  had  resjiectively 
sent  deputies  to  the  said  General  Convention:" — And 
thereupon  the  said  convention,  anxious  to  complete  their 
Episcopal  system  by  means  of  the  Church  of  England,  did 
transcribe  and  transmit  an  address  to  the  most  reverend 
and  right  reverend  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York,  and  the  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,  earnestly 
entreating  that  venerable  body  to  confer  the  Episcopal 
character  on  such  persons  as  should  be  recommended  by 
this  Church,  in  the  several  states  so  represented. 

And  whereas  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  this  Church 
have  received  the  most  friendly  and  affectionate  letters  in 
answer  to  the  said  address,  from  the  said  archbishops  and 
bishops,  opening  a  fair  prospect  of  the  success  of  their  saki 
applications ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  earnestly  exhorting  this 
convention  to  use  their  utmost  exertions  for  the  removal  of 
certain  objections  by  them  made,  against  son)e  parts  of  the 
alterations  in  the  Book  of  Cominon  Prayer,  and  Rites  and 
Ceremonies  of  this  Church,  last  mentioned:  In  pursuance 
whereof,  this  present  General  Convention  hath  been  called, 
and  is  now  assenibled  ;  and  being  sincerely  disposed  to  give 
every  satisfaction  to  their  lordships,  which  will  be  consist- 
ent with  the  union  and  general  content  of  the  Church  they 
represent;  and  declaring  their  steadfast  resolution  to  main- 
tain the  same  essential  articles  of  faith  and  discipline  with 
the  Church  of  England: 

Now  therefore,  the  said  deputies  do  hereby  determine  and 
declare, 

First,  That  in  the  creed  commonly  called  the  Apostlcis' 
Creed,  these  words — "  He  descended  into  hell,"  shall  \>e. 
and  continue  a  part  of  that  creed. 


32Cr  Appendix— No.  13> 

Secondly,  Tliat  ilic  iNiceiie  Creed  shall  also  be  inserted 
in  the  said  JJook  ol"  Common  Prayer,  immediately  after  the 
Apostle's  Creed,  prefaced  with  the  rubric  [or  this.'] 

And  whereas,  In  consequence  of  the  objections  expressed 
by  their  lordb-hips  to  the  alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  last  mentioned,  the  conventions  in  some  of  the 
states,  represented  in  this  General  Convention,  have  sus- 
pended the  ratification  and  use  of  the  said  Book  of  Com- 
Mion  Prayer,  by  reason  whereof  it  will  be  improper  that 
persons  to  be  consecrated  or  ordained  as  bishops,  priests, 
or  deacons,  respectively,  should  subscribe  the  declaration 
contained  in  the  tenth  article  of  the  general  ecclesiastical 
constitution,  without  some  modification. 

Therefore,  it  is  hereby  determined  and  declared, 
Tliirdly,  That  the  second  clause  so  to  be  subscribed  by  a 
bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  of  this  Church,  in  any  of  the  states 
which  have  not  already  ratified  or  used  the  last  mentioned 
Book  of  Connnon  Prayer,  shall  be  in  the  words  following — 
"  And  1  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrine  and 
worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  according  to 
the  use  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  the  same  is  altered  by 
the  General  Convention,  in  a  certain  instrument  of  writing, 
passed  by  their  authority,  entitled,  Alterations  of  the  Liturgy 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  Slates  of 
America,   in  order  to  render   the   same  conformable  to  the 
American  Revolution,  and  the  Consiitutions  of  the  respective 
States,   until  the  new  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  recom- 
mended by  the  General  Convention,  shall  be  ratified  or  used 
in  the  state  in  which  lam  (bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  as  the 
case  may  be),   by  the  authority  of  the  convention  thereof. 
And  I  do  further  solemnly  engage,  that  when  the  said  new- 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  shall  be  ratified  or  used  by  the 
authority  of  the   convention  in  the  state  for   which  I  am 
consecrated  a  bishop  (or  ordained   a  priest  or  deacon,)  I 
will  conform  to  the   doctrines    and  worship   of  the    Pro- 
testant  Episcopal  Church,   as  settled  and  determined  in 
the  last  mentioned  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Admi- 
nistration  of  the   Sacraments,   set  forth  by  the  General 
Convention  of  the   Protestant    Episcopal   Church  in  the 
United  States." 

And  it  is  hereby  further  determined  and  declared, 

That  these  words  in  the  preface  to  the  new  proposed 

Book  of  Common  Prayer,  viz.  "  In  the  creed  commonly 

called  the  Apostle's  Creed,  one  clause  is  omitted,  as  being 

of  uncertain  meaning ;  and"— together  with  the  note  re- 


Appendix — No.  14.  Z^ir 

ferred  to  In  that  place,  be,  from  henceforth,  no  part  of  the 
preface  to  the  said  proposed  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
And  it  is  hereby  further  determined  and  declared, 
That  the  fourth  article  of  religion  in  the  new  proposed 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  be  altered,  to  render  it  conforma- 
ble to  the  adoption  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  as  follows,  "  of  the 
creeds.  The  two  creeds,  namely,  that  commonly  called 
the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed,  ought  to  be  re- 
ceived and  believed,  because  they."   »fec.  Sec. 

Done  in  General  Convention,  at  Wilmingtony  in  the  State  of 
Delaware,  the  day  and  year  first  aforesaid. 


No.  14.    Page  138. 

To  all  Persons  to  trhom  these  Presents  shall  come,  or  tchoni 
the  same  shall  or  may  in  any  icise  or  at  any  time  concern, 
we,  John,  by  Divine  Providence,  Lord  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, Primate  of  alt  England,  and  Metropolitan,  send 
greeting : — 

Whereas,  by  an  act  of  parliament,  passed  at  Westmin- 
Bter,  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  sovereign 
Lord  George  the  third,  king  of  Great-Britain,  France,  and 
Ireland,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  empower  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  or  the  Archbishop  of  York,  for  the  time  being, 
to  Consecrate  to  the  Oflice  of  a  Bishop,  Persons  being 
Subjects  or  Citizens  of  Countries  out  of  his  Majesty's  Do- 
minions," it  is  enacted,  that  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to 
and  for  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  archbishop  of 
York,  for  the  time  being,  together  with  such  other  bishops 
as  they  shall  call  to  their  assistance,  to  consecrate  persons, 
being  subjects  or  citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's 
dominions,  bishops,  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  without  the 
king's  license  for  their  election,  or  the  royal  mandate  under 
the  great  seal  for  their  confirmation  and  consecration,  and 
without  requiring  them  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and 
supremacy,  and  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  archbishop 
for  the  time  being.  Provided  always,  that  no  persons  shalt 
be  consecrated  bishops  in  the  manner  herein  provided,  until 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  archbishop  of  York, 
for  the  time  being,  shall  have  first  applied  for,  and  ob'tained 
his  majesty's  license,  by  warrant  under  his  royal  signet  and 
sign  manual,  authorizing  and  empowering  him  to  perform 
such  consecration,  and  expressing  the  name  or  names  of 

41 


322  Appendix— No.  14. 

the  persons  so  to  be  consecrated  ;  nor  until  tlio  said  arch- 
bishop has  been  fully  ascertained  of  their  sutiiciency  in  good 
learning,  of  the  soundness  of  their  faith,  and  of  the  purity 
of  their  manners.  Provided  also,  and  be  it  hereby  declared, 
that  no  j)erson  or  persons  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a 
bishop  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person  or  persons 
deriving  their  consecration  from  or  under  any  bishop  so 
consecrated,  nor  any  person  or  persons  admitted  to  the 
order  of  deacon  or  priest  by  any  bishop  or  bishops  so  con- 
secrated, or  by  the  successor  or  successors  of  any  bishop 
or  bishops  so  consecrated,  shall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exer- 
cise his  or  their  respective  office  or  offices  within  his 
majesty's  dominions.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  further 
enacted,  that  a  certificate  of  such  consecration  shall  be  given 
under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  archbishop  who  consecrates, 
containing  the  name  of  the  person  so  consecrated,  with  the 
addition  as  well  of  the  country  whereof  he  is  a  subject  or 
citizen,  as  of  the  Church  in  which  he  is  appointed  bishop, 
and  the  further  description  of  his  not  having  taken  the  said 
oaths,  being  exempted  from  the  obligation  of  so  doing  by 
virtue  of  this  act. — Now,  know  all  men  by  these  presents, 
that  we,  the  said  John,  lord  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
having  obtained  his  majesty's  license,  by  warrant  under  his 
royal  signet  and  sign  manual,  did,  in  pursuance  of  the  said 
act  of  parliament,  on  Sunday,  the  fourth  day  of  February, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-seven,  in  the  chapel  of  our  palace,  at  Lambeth,  in 
the  county  of  Surry,  admit  our  beloved  in  Christ,  William 
White,  clerk,  D.  D.  a  subject  or  citizen  of  the  state  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  North-America,  and  rector  of  Christ 
Church  and  St.  Peter's,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  in  the 
said  state,  of  whose  sufficiency  in  good  learning,  soundness 
in  the  faith,  and  purity  of  manners,  we  were  fully  ascer- 
tained, into  the  office  of  a  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  aforesaid,  to  which 
the  said  William  White  hath  been  elected  by  the  convention 
for  the  said  state,  as  appears  unto  us  by  due  testimony 
thereof  by  him  produced ;  and  him,  the  said  William  White, 
did  then  and  there  rightly  and  canonically  consecrate  a 
bishop,  accordini;-  to  the  manner  and  form  prescribed  and 
used  by  the  Church  of  England,  his  taking  the  oaths  of 
allegiance,  supremacy,  and  canonical  obedience  only  ex- 
cepted, he  being  exenipted  from  the  obligation  of  taking 
the  said  oaths  by  virtue  of  the  above  recited  act.  Provided, 
that  neither  he,  the  said  bishop,  nor  any  person  or  persons 


Appendix — No.  14.  823 

deriving  their  consecration  from  or  under  him,  nor  any 
person  or  persons  admitted  to  the  order  of  deacon  or  priest 
by  him,  or  his  successor  or  successors,  shall  be  enabled  to 
exercise  his  or  their  respective  office  or  offices  within  his 
majesty's  dominions.  In  testimony  whereof,  we  have  caused 
our  archi-episcopal  seal  to  be  affixed  to  thfese  presents. 
Given  at  Lambeth  House,  the  day  and  year  above  written, 
and  in  the  fourth  year  of  our  translation. 

J.  (L.  S.)  CANTUAR. 

We,  William,  lord  archbishop  of  York,  Charles,  lord 
bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and  John,  lord  bishop  of  Peter- 
borough, were  present  and  assisting  at  the  consecration 
within  mentioned. 

W.  EBOR, 

C.  BATH   &  WELLS, 

J.  PETERBOROUGH. 

The  signatures  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York,  and  of  the  bishops  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and  Peter- 
borough, were  made  in  my  presence,  February  4th,  1787. 

W.  DICKES, 
(Copy.)  Secretary  to  ths  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

On  Sunday,  the  fourth  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of 
our  Ijord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven, 
and  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  translation  of  the  most  rever- 
end father  in  God,  John,  by  divine  Providence,  lord  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  primate  of  all  England,  and  metro- 
jiolitan,  in  the  chapel  at  the  palace  at  Lambeth,  in  the 
county  of  Surry,  the  said  most  reverend  father  in  God,  by 
virtue  and  authority  of  a  certain  license  or  warrant  from 
his  most  gracious  majesty,  and  our  sovereign  Lord  George 
the  third,  by  tlie  grace  of  God,  of  Great-Britain,  France, 
and  Ireland,  king,  defender  of  the  faith,  and  so  forth,  to 
him,  in  this  behalf,  directed,  the  most  .reverend  father  in 
God,  William,  by  the  same  Providence,  lord  archbishop  of 
York,  primate  of  England,  and  metropolitan,  and  the  right 
reverend  fathers  in  God,  Charles,  by  divine  permission, 
lord  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and  John,  by  divine  per- 
mission, lord  bishop  of  Peterborough,  assisting  him,  conse- 
crated the  reverend  William  White,  doctor  in  divinity, 
rector  of  Christ  Church  and  St.  Peter's,  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  a  subject  or  citizen  of  the  United  States  of 
iVorth-Amcrica,  and  the  reverend  Samuel  Provoost,  doctor 


324  Appendix — No.  14. 

in  divinity,  rector  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  INcW' 
York,  a  subject  or  citizen  also  of  the  United  States  o( 
North-America,  to  the  office  of  a  bishop,  respectively,  tiie 
rites,  circumstances,  and  ceremonies  anciently  used  in  the 
Church  of  England  being  observed  and  applied,  according 
to  the  tenour  of  an  act  passed  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of 
the  reign  of  his  said  majesty,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  em- 
power the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  Archbishop  of 
York,  for  the  time  being,  to  Consecrate  to  the  Office  of  a 
Bishop,  Persons  being  Subjects  or  Citizens  of  Countries 
out  of  his  Majesty's  Dominions,"  in  the  presence  of  me, 
Robert  Jenner,  notary-public,  one  of  the  deputy  registers 
of  the  province  of  Canterbury,  being  then  and  there  pre- 
sent,   the   reverend    and    worshipful   William   Backhouse, 

doctor  in  divinity,  archdeacon  of  Canterbury,  the  Rev. 

Lort,  doctor  in  divinity,  the  Rev. Drake,  doctor  in 

divinity,  William  Dickes,  Esquire,  notary-public,  secretary 
to  his  grace  the  said  lord  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  with 
many  others  in  great  numbers  then  and  there  assembled. 
Which  1  attest. 

RT.  JENNER, 
(Copy.)  Notary-Public,  actuary  assumed. 

And  we,  the  underwritten  notaries  public,  by  royal  au- 
thority duly  admitted  and  sworn,  residing  in  Doctor's 
Commons,  London,  do  hereby  certify  and  attest,  to  all 
whom  it  may  concern,  that  Rober  Jenner,  whose  name  is 
subscribed  to  the  aforegoing  art,  was  and  is  a  notaryrpublic, 
and  one  of  the  deputy  registers  of  the  province  of  Canter- 
bury, and  that  the  letters,  name,  and  words,  "  Rt.  Jenner, 
notary-public,"  thereto  subscribed,  were  and  are  of  the 
proper  hand  writing  and  subscription  of  the  said  Robert 
Jenner,  and  that  we  saw  him  sign  the  same,  and  that  full 
faith  and  entire  credit  is  and  ought  to  be  given  to  all  the 
acts,  subscriptions,  and  attestations  of  the  said  Robert 
Jenner,  as  well  in  judgment  as  out.  In  testimony  whereof, 
we  have  hereunto  subscribed  our  names,  to  serve  and  avail 
as  occasion  may  require,  at  Doctor's  Commons,  London, 
this  fifth  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  ono 
thousand   seven    hundred   and   eighty-seven.     Which   we 

EDWARD  COOrER,  Notary- Public, 
(Copy.)  W1LLL\M  ABBOT,  Notary-Public, 


Appendix — No.  15.  325 

No.  15.  Page  139. 
Note  of  the  Archhislwp. 

The  archbishop  desires  to  have  the  proper  direction  for 
a  letter  to  Bishop  White  at  Falmouth ;  where,  if  he  can 
iind  time,  he  means  to  send  a  letter  to  Dr.  Chandler.  If 
he  should  not  be  able  to  write  to  Dr.  Chandler,  he  begs  the 
bishop  to  assure  him  of  his  affectionate  esteem  and  regard, 
and  his  hearty  prayers  for  his  better  health.  He  wishes 
also  for  such  a  direction,  as  will  be  most  proper  for  a  letter, 
should  occasion  call  for  one,  to  the  bishop  in  Philadelphia. 

It  is  proper  that  the  bishops  should  be  informed,  that  the 
archbishop  was  mistaken  about  the  consecrations  in  the 
province  of  York.  They  have  always  been  attended  by 
two  bishops  with  the  archbishop. 


No.  16.  Page  139. 

1.  From  his  Excellency  Richard  Henry  Lee,  Esq.  President 
of  Congress,  to  the  Hon.  John  Adams,  Esq.  Minister  Ple- 
nipotentiary  to  the  Court  of  Great-Britain.* 

New-York,  October  24,  1785. 
JDear  Sir, 

Having  yesterday  written  a  long  letter  to  you,  I  have  now 
only  to  request  your  attention  to  the  following  business, 
which  is  of  very  great  importance  to  those  whom  it  concerns ; 
and  who  form  a  considerable  portion  of  the  citizens  of  these 
states.  The  representatives  of  those  professing  the  Church 
of  England  system  of  religion,  having  been  lately  assembled 
at  Philadelphia,  where  lay  and  clerical  deputies  from  seven 
states  were  convened  in  General  Convention,  for  the  purpose, 
among  other  things,  of  preserving  and  maintaining  a  suc- 
cession of  divines  in  their  Church,  in  a  manner  which  they 


*  In  the  answer  of  Mr.  Adams,  he  calls  Mr.  Lee  "  late  president  of  Congress." 
The  presidency  of  the  latter  ended  two  days  after  his  writing  of  the  letter,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  printed  journals  of  the  body,  and  the  circumstance  must  have  been 
iljnown  to  Mr.  Adams.  Therefore,  the  letter  was  written  while  Mr.  Lee  was 
president,  and  must  have  been  designed  to  carry  with  it  the  weight  of  his  official 
tharacter. 


32Q  Appendix — No.  IG. 

judge  consonant  to  the  Gospel,  and  no  way  interfering  with 
the  rcHgious  or  civil  rights  of  otliers,  have  sent  an  address 
to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England,  proposing  a  plan 
for  the  consecration  of  American  bishops. — It  is  imagined 
that  before  any  thing  is  done  in  this  business  by  the  bishops 
of  England,  they  will  consult  the  king  and  ministry;  who, 
it  is  apprehended,  may  now,  as  heretofore,  suppose  that  any 
step  of  the  kind  being  taken  in  England,  might  be  consider- 
ed here  as  an  ofiicious  intermeddling  with  our  affairs,  that 
would  give  offence  on  this  side  the  water.  Should  this  be 
the  case,  the  Church  of  England  members  of  congress  have 
the  greatest  reliance  on  your  liberal  regard  for  the  religious 
lights  of  all  men,  that  you  will  remove  mistaken  scruples 
from  the  mind  of  administration,  by  representing  how  per- 
fectly consonant  it  is  with  our  revolution  principles,  pro- 
fessed throughout  all  these  states,  that  every  denomination 
of  Christians  has  a  right  to  pursue  its  own  religious  modes, 
interfering  not  with  others.  That  instead  of  giving  offence, 
it  must  give  content,  by  evidencing  a  friendly  disposition 
to  accommodate  the  people  here  who  are  members  of  the 
Church  in  question. 

In  proof  of  this,  congress  did  lately  show  their  attention 
to  the  accommodation  of  this  class  of  Christians,  by  com- 
municating to  the  different  executives  your  information 
from  the  Danish  minister,  of  that  king's  willingness  to  facili- 
tate the  business  of  ordination  for  our  Church,  and  the  as- 
sembly of  Virginia  hath  incorporated  this  society,  under 
which  act  of  incorporation  the  assembly  was  held  in  that 
state  that  sent  both  lay  and  clerical  deputies  to  the  General 
Convention  lately  held  in  Philadelphia. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  sentiments  of  the  truest 
esteem  and  regard,  dear  sir,  your  most  obedient  and  very 
humble  servant, 

RICHARD  HENRY  LEE. 
His  Excellency  John  Adams,  Esq.  Minister  Plenipotentiary 

from  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Court  of  London, 

at  his  House  in  Grosvenor-Square,  London. 


Appendix — No.  \Q.  3*27 

•J.  From  Mr.  Adavis  to  Mr.  Lee,  in  answer.^ 

Grosvciior-Squarc,  January  4,  1786, 

Dear  Sir, 

A  (lay  or  two  after  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  November 
1,  and  that  of  J^Ir.  Jay's  whicii  came  with  it,  I  wrote  to  the 
nrchbishoj3  of  Canterbury,  by  Col.  Smith,  for  an  hour  when 
I  might  have  the  honour  to  pay  my  respects  to  his  grace, 
and  was  answered  yavy  politely,  that  he  would  be  glad  to 
*  have  the  honour  of  seeing  nie  next  day,  between  eleven 
and  twelve.  Accordingly  1  went  yesterday,  and  was  very 
agreeably  received,  by  a  venerable  and  a  candid  prelate, 
with  whom  J  had  before  only  exchanged  visits  of  ceremony. 
I  told  his  grace,  that  at  the  desire  of  two  very  respectable 
characters  in  America,  the  late  jjresident  of  congress  and 
the  present  secretary  of  state  for  the  department  of  foreign 
affairs,  I  had  the  honour  to  be  the  bearer  to  his  grace  of  a 
letter  from  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  most  of  tlie  southern  states,  which  had  been 
transmitted  to  me  open,  that  1  might  be  acquainted  with 
its  contents.  That  in  this  business,  however,  1  acted  in  no 
official  character,  having  no  instructions  from  congress,  nor 
indeed  from  the  convention  ;  but  I  thought  it  most  respectful 
to  them,  as  well  as  to  his  grace,  to  present  the  letter  in 
person.  The  archbishop  answered,  that  all  that  he  could 
say  at  present  was,  that  he  was  himself  very  v/ell  disposed 
to  give  the  satisfaction  desired — for  that  he  was  by  no 
means  one  of  those  who  wished  that  contention  should  be 
kept  up  between  the  two  countries,  or  between  one  party 
and  another  in  America — but,  on  the  contrary,  was  desirous 
of  doing  every  thing  in  his  power  to  promote  harmony  and 
good  humour.  I  then  said,  that  if  his  grace  would  take 
the  trouble  of  reading  two  letters  from  Mr.  Lee  and  Mr. 
Jay,  he  would  perceive  the  motives  of  those  gentlemen  in 
sending  the  letter  to  my  care.  I  gave  him  the  letters,  which 
he  read  attentively  and  returned,  and  added,  that  it  was  a 
great  satisfaction  to  him  to  see,  that  gentlemen  of  character 
and  reputation  interested  themselves  in  it — for  that  the 
Episcopalians  in  the  United  States  could  not  have  the  full 


•  There  is  in  possession  a  copy  of  a  letter  to  John  Jay,  Esq.  containing  the  same 
m  substance ;  it  being  in  answer  to  a  letter  of  that  gentleman,  tiien  secretary  of 
atate  for  foreign  affairs. 


328  Appendix-— No.  IC. 

and  complete  enjoyment  of  their  religious  liberties  withau* 
it — and  lie  subjoined,  that  it  was  also  a  great  satisfaction  to 
liim,  to  have  received  this  visit  from  me  upon  this  occasion 
— and  he  would  take  the  liberty  to  ask  me,  if  it  were  not  an 
improper  question,  whether  the  interposition  of  the  English 
bishops  would  not  give  uneasiness  and  dissatisfaction  in 
America  ?  I  replied,  that  my  answer  could  be  only  that  of  a 
private  citizen,  and  in  that  ca|)acity  I  had  no  scruple  to  say 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  general,  were  for  a 
liberal  and  generous  toleration.  I  might  indeed  employ  a 
stronger  word,  and  call  it  a  right,  and  the  first  right  of 
mankind,  to  worship  God  according  to  their  consciences, 
and  therefore  that  I  could  not  see  any  reasonable  ground 
for  dissatisfaction,  and  that  I  hoped  and  believed  that  there 
would  be  none  of  any  consequence. 

His  grace  was  then  pleased  to  say,  that  religion  in  all 
countries,  especially  a  young  one,  ought  to  be  attended  to, 
as  it  was  the  foundation  of  government.  He  hoped  the 
characters  which  should  be  recommended,  would  be  good 
ones.  I  replied,  that  there  were  in  the  Churches  in  America, 
able  men,  of  characters  altogether  irreproachable — and  that 
such  and  such  only,  I  presumed,  would  be  recommended. 
I  then  rose  to  take  my  leave,  and  his  grace  then  asked  me, 
if  he  might  be  at  liberty  to  mention,  that  I  had  made  him 
this  visit  upon  this  occasion  ?  I  answered,  certainly,  if  his 
grace  should  judge  it  proper.  Thus,  sir,  I  have  fulfilled 
my  commission,  and  remain,  as  usual,  your  sincere  friend 
and  most  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  ADAMS. 
(A  true  copy.) 
Richard  Henry  Lee. 


3.  Letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterhury  to  Mr.  Adams. 

Lambeth  House,  February  27,  1786. 

Sir, 

After  full  communication  with  the  archbishop  of  York, 
and  the  bishops,  on  the  subject  of  the  address,  which  you 
delivered  to  me  from  the  deputies  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  convention,  in  Philadelphia,  I  concur  with 
them  in  requesting  the  favour  of  you,  to  forward  our  answer 
to  the  committee  appointed  to  receive  it.  Duplicates  of 
the  answer  accompany  this  letter ;  which,  if  sent  by  different 


Appendix— No.  16.  3^0? 

sMpe,  we  hope  may  give  a  better  chance  of  the  early  arrival 
of"  one  of  them. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be, 

Sir,  your  most  obedient, 
Humble  servant, 

J.  CANTUAR. 


4;   Certificate  of  the  Supreme  Exceiiiive   Caundl  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

Fcnnsijlcama,  ss. 

The  sujireme  executive  council  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Pentisylvania,  tlo  hereby  certify  and  make  known  to  all 
whom  it  may  concern,  that  agreeably  to  the  frame  of 
government  and  laws  of  this  commonvvealtli — the  clergy 
and  others,  members  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Penn- 
sylvania, are  at  lit)erty  to  take  such  means  as  they  may 
think  proper,  for  keeping  up  a  succession  of  religious 
teachers — Provided  only,  that  the  means  they  adopt  for 
this  purpose  do  not  induce  a  subjection  to  any  foreign 
jurisdiction,  civil  or  ecclesiastical. 

Given  in  council  under  the  hand  of  the  honourable  Charles 
Biddle,  Usquire,  Vice-President,  and  the  seal  of  the 
State,  at  Philadelphia,  this  t went i/-f our th  day  of  Novem- 
ber, in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  eighty-JivCf  and  in  the  tenth  year  of  the  Common- 
irealth. 

(Attest)  CHARLES  BIDDLE,  V.  P. 

JOHN  ARMSTRONG,  Jur.  Sec. 


5.   A   Certificate  of  his  Excellency  Patrick  Henry,   Esq. 
Governor  of  Virginia.* 

By  his  Excellency  Patrick  Henry,  Esq.  Governor  of  the  Com-" 
monwealth  of  Virginia. 

It  is  certified  and  made  known  to  aU  whom  it  may  con- 
cern— That  the  Protestant   Episcopal  Church  is  incorpo- 


•  This  copy  of  the  certificate  of  the  governor  of  Virginia,  was  sent  to  the  author 
bv  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith,  bishop  elect  of  that  state,  to  be  laid  before  the  conventioi* 
of  October,  17?6. 

42 


330  Appendix— No.  17. 

rated  by  an  act  of  the  le^i.slnturc  of  this  commonwealth,  far 
that  piir[)Ose,  tiiade  and  provided:  tliat  there  is  no  law  ex- 
isting in  this  commonwealth,  which  in  any  manner  forbids 
the  admission  of  bishoi)s,  or  the  exercise  of  their  office:  on 
the  contrary,  by  the  sixteenth  article  of  the  declaration  of 
rights,  it  is  'provided  in  the  words  following,  viz. — "  That 
religion,  or  the  dnty  which  we  owe  to  our  Creator,  and  the 
manner  of  discharging  it,  can  be  directed  only  by  reason 
and  conviction,  not  by  force  or  violence,  and  therefore  all 
men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  free  exercise  of  religion, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience ;  and  that  it  is  the 
mutual  duty  of  all,  to  practice  Christian  forbearance,  love, 
and  charity  towards  each  other," — which  said  article  is 
now  in  full  force. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  handy  and 
caused  the  seal  of  the   Commonwealth  to  he  aflixed,  at 
Richmond,  this  first  day  of  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-six,  and  tenth  of 
the  Commonwealth. 

P.  HE^Ry. 


No.  17.  Page  139. 

From  Richard  Peters,  Esq. 

London,  March  4,  1786^ 

Gentlemen, 

I  yesterday  waited  on  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who 
received  me  with  great  politeness.  I  delivered  the  parcels 
you  sent  by  me,  but  he  had  previously  received  the  origi- 
nals. He  opened  the  conversation  by  saying,  that  on  receipt 
of  the  address  from  the  convention,  which  was  conceived  in 
terms  that  gave  great  satisfaction,  the  bishops  had  deter- 
mined at  once  to  comply  with  it,  if  the  government  would 
enable  them,  by  passing  a  law  for  the  purpose.  But  hearing 
a  number  of  rc;vjrts,  which  the  committee  had  not  put  it  in 
their  power  to  clear  up,  by  sending  them  all  the  proceedings 
of  the  convention,  they  thought  it  their  duty  to  act  cautiously, 
and  restrained  their  desire  to  meet  our  wishes,  till  they  had 
more  full  information  on  the  subject.  He  said  it  was  un- 
necessary to  enter  into  the  various  reports  of  alterations 
said  to  be  made,  or  intended  by  our  Churches,  for  he  did 


Appendix — No.  17.  331 

'-noi  give  credit  to  common  reports,  which  are  often  circulated 
without  foundation.  Some  alterations,  however,  it  a[)- 
peared,  had  been  made,  and  what  the  rest  were,  could  not 
be  told  until  the  whole  was  laid  before  them.  That  some 
alterations  were  necessarily  brought  about  by  the  change  of 
circumstances,  and  were  therefore  proper,  he  allowed;  but 
he  hoped  there  would  be  found  none  which  rendered  our 
Church  substantially  different  from  theirs,  of  v/hich  he  con- 
sidered it  as  a  branch,  and  the  bishops  were  obliged  to  ex- 
amine what  Church  ours  was,  before,  from  their  source,  they 
established  an  Episcopacy  over  a  people,  who  might  perhaps 
hold  tenets  opposite  to  theirs.  He  did  not  know  or  believe 
this  was  the  case  with  respect  to  us,  but  it  became  them  to 
inquire.  He  feared  some  of  our  business  had  been  done 
hastily.  He  showed  me  the  answer  to  the  address,  which 
he -said  had  been  sincerely /e//  by  every  bishop  who  had 
signed  it.  He  seemed  very  desirous  of  removing  any  doubts 
about  their  firm  intentions  to  comply  with  our  wishes: 
showed  me  the  original  draft  of  the  answer  in  his  hand- 
writing. I  observed  there  were  no  alterations  made  in  it, 
and  among  nineteen  bishops,  who  were  all  that  were  in 
town  at  the  meeting  of  parliament,  there  was  not  a  dissent- 
ing voice.  He  hoped  so  unanimous  an  opinion,  must  evi- 
dence, beyond  a  doubt,  the  great  desire  ail  had  to  grant  our 
request.  They  all,  from  the  bottom  of  their  hearts,  wished 
our  prosperity,  and  would  do  all  in  their  power  to  promote 
It.  But  before  they  had  the  necessary  information,  it  would 
be  imprudent  in  them  to  act.  He  said  there  would  be  no 
difficulties  with  government,  and  was  happy  that  all  embar- 
rassments, with  respect  to  the  civil  powers  of  the  United 
States,  were  removed  by  the  certificates  and  papers  trans- 
mitted. He  had  spoke  to  the  king,  on  the  receipt  of  the 
address,  who  expressed  great  satisfaction  in  it,  and  was 
ready  to  do  what  was  required  of  him.  That  administra- 
tion would  promote  the  law,  when  it  was  recommended  by 
the  bishoj)s  as  proper.  They  therefore,  being  in  a  respon- 
sible situation,  must  proceed  with  caution.  He  desired 
nothing  he  had  said,  should  be  thought  calculated  to  throw 
difficulties  in  the  way;  for  there  really  was  no  disposition 
ot  that  kind  in  the  bishops,  or  members  of  the  government. 
He  hoped  our  convention,  at  the  next  meeting,  woidd  con- 
sider the  embarrassments  too  many  alterations  would  throw 
in  the  way  of  their  application  here,  and  if  any  of  them  sub- 
stantially deviated  from  the  doctrines  or  worship  of  this 
€hurch,  it  would  frustrate  the  views  of  our  Churches,  by 


B32  Appendix — Xo.  17. 

f)Uttiiig  it  out  of  the  power  of  those  here,  who  liavc  every 
good  disposition  to  serve  us,  to  forward  our  application. 
He  wished  great  care  might  be  taken  of  the  character  of 
those   sent   for   consecration,  as   iui;ch   dcpen{k^d  on   this. 
They  shouUl,  however,  commit  themselves  to  our  discretion 
in  this  respect,  and  hoped  they  should  have  no  reason  to 
repent  it.     He  declined  answering  the  question  I  was  do- 
sired  by  Dr.  White  to  put  to  him,  respecting  the  validity  of 
Scotch  consecrations,   having  lirst  asked   me  whether  the 
question  came  from  the  convention  ?     1  told  hiai  it  was  to^ 
satisfy  private  inquiries,  which  were  made  with  no  view  of 
seeking  consecration  from  that  source.*     I  find  we  can  have 
no  bishop,  until  we  let  the  prelates  here  see  what  Church 
we  have  made.     I  think  it  would  be  prudent  in  our  Church 
to  put  off  any  material  alterations  until  we   have  bishops 
consecrated.     If  we  make  any  substantial  alterations,  they 
will  be  carped  at  by  those  who  will  make  the  bishops  uneasy  ; 
and  to  keep   peace   at   home,   they  will   refuse   to  meddle 
abroad,  notwithstanding  their  strong  desire  to  do  what  we 
wish. 

I  am,  gentlemen, 
With  much  esteem, 

Your  very  obedient  servant, 
PaCHARD  PETERS. 
Rev.  Dr.  White,  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  Rev.  Mr.  Frovuust, 
Hon.  James  Duane,  Samuel  Powell,  Esq. 

V.  S.  Mr.  Adams  has  been  very  attentive  to  the  business 
of  an  address,  with  which  he  wailed  on  the  archbisho|i,  who 
in  return  waited  on  him  with  the  answer  transmitted.  I 
think  the  committee  shonld  return  him  their  thanks,  for  the 
part  lie  (Mr.  Adams)  has  taken. 

Do  not  publish  the  bishops'  answer,  as  it  will  get  over 
here,  and  be  a  subject  of  news-paper  discussion. 


*  Nolwithstfindinp  tlie  prudent  reserve  of  (lie  archbishop  at  tliislime.  lie  is  said 
to  have  giTen  his  iutlueiice  in  favour  of  the  noiijuriiif,'  hi.>-hops  about  three  yearn 
afterwards;  when,  on  the  decease  of  the  last  Pretender,  diey  began  to  pray  for 
,the  king  on  the  throne,  and  some  of  them  came  up  to  London,,  to  solicit  tli«  icjieaj 
,9f  the  penal  laws  made  against  tlnJii). 


Appendix — No.  17.  333 

No.  IS.    Pa-c  142. 
jin  Act  of  the  Clergy  of  JSlassucliusclts  and  iS'cic-HanrpsJiirc. 

The  good  Providence  of  Alniiiihty  God,  ihc  'onntaiii  t)f 
all  goodness,  having  lately  blessed  ihe  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  by  supplying  it 
with  a  complete  and  entire  ministry,  and  affording  to  many 
of  her  communion  the  benefit  of  the  labours,  advice,  and 
government  of  the  successors  of  the  apostles  ; 

We,  presbyters  of  said  Church  in  the  states  of  Massa- 
rchusetts  and  New-IIampshire,  deeply  inijiressed  with  the 
most  lively  gratitude  to  the  Supreme  Governor  of  the  uni- 
verse, for  his  goodness  in  this  respect,  and  with  the  most 
ardent  love  to  his  Church,  and  concern  for  the  interest  of 
her  sons,  that  they  may  enjoy  ail  the  means  that  Christ, 
the  great  Shepiicrd  and  Bishop  of  souls,  has  instituted  for 
leading  his  followers  into  the  ways  of  truth  and  holiness, 
and  preserving  his  Church  in  the  unity  of  the  spirit,  and 
the  bond  of  j)eace  ;  to  the  end  that  the  j)eople  committed 
^o  our  respective  charges  may  enjoy  the  benefit  and  advant- 
age of  those  olhces,  the  administration  of  wiiich  belotigs  to 
the  highest  order  of  the  ministry,  and  to  encourage  and 
j)romote,  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  a  union  of  the  whole  Episcojjal 
Cliurch  in  these  states,  and  to  perfect  and  compact  this 
mystical  body  of  Christ,  do  hereby  nominate,  elect,  and 
appoint,  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass,  a  presbyter  of  said  Church, 
and  rector  of  St.  Paul's,  in  Newburyport,  to  be  our  bisliop; 
and  we  do  promise  and  engage  to  receive  him  as  such, 
when  canonically  consecrated,  and  invested  with  the  apos- 
tolic office  and  powers,  by  the  right  reverend  the  bishops 
hereafter  named,  and  to  render  him  all  that  canonical  obedi- 
xjnce  and  submission,  which,  by  the  laws  of  Christ  and  the 
constitution  of  our  Church,  is  Ana  to  so  important  an  otTice. 

An(\  we  now  address  t!ie  right  reverend  the  bishops  in 
Jthe  states  of  Connecticut,  New- York,  and  Pennsylvania, 
])raying  their  united  assistance  in  consecrating  our  said 
brother,  and  canonically  investing  him  with  the  apostolic 
otiice  and  powers.  This  request  we  are  induced  to  make, 
from  a  long  ac<piaintance  with  him,  and  from  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  his  being  possessed  of  that  love  to  God  and 
benevolence  to  men,  tlmt  jiiety,  learning,  and  good  morals, 
ihat  prudence  and  discretion,  retptisife  to  so  exaUed  a 
station,  as  well  as  th;<.t  personal  rcspc<;t  and  attachment  of 


334  Appendix — No.  18. 

the  communion  at  large  in  these  states,  whicli  will  mak« 
him  a  valuable  acquisition  to  the  order,  and,  we  trust,  a 
rich  blessing:  to  the  Church. 

Done  at  a  meeting  of  the  Prcshytcrs,  7cho.sc  names  are 
undencrilten,  held  at  Salem,  in  the  County  of  Essex, 
and  Commonicealth  of  Massachusetts,  the  fourth  day  of 
June,  Anno  Salutis,  1789. 

SAMUEL  PARKER, 

Rector  of  Triniti/  Church,  Boston. 

T.  FITCH  OLIVER, 

Rector  of  St.  MichacVs  Church,  3JarbIehead. 
JOHN  COUSErsS  OGDEN, 
Rector  of  Q.uccii's  Chapel,  Portsmouth,  New- Hampshire . 
WILLIAM  MONTAGUE, 

Minister  of  Christ  Church,  lioston. 

TILLOTSON  15RUNSON, 

Assistant  Minister  of  Christ  Church,  Boston. 

Resolves  on  the  foregoing. 

1st.  Resolved,  That  a  complete  order  of  bishops,  derived 
as  well  under  the  English  as  the  Scots  line  of  Episcopacy, 
doth  now  subsist  within  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
the  persons  of  the  Right  Rev.  William  White,  D.  D.  i)ishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episco|)al  Church  in  the  state  of  Penn- 
sylvania ;  the  Right  Rev.  Samuel  Provoost,  D.  D.  bishop  of 
the  said  Church  in  the  state  of  New-Vork;  and  the  Right 
Rev.  Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D.  bishop  of  the  said  Church  in 
the  state  of  Connecticut. 

2d.  Resolved,  That  the  said  three  bishops  are  fully  com- 
petent to  every  proper  act  and  duty  of  the  Ej)iscopal  office 
and  character  in  these  United  States,  as  well  in  respect  to 
the  consecration  of  other  bisho|)s,  and  the  ordering  of  priests 
and  deacons,  as  for  the  government  of  the  Church,  accord- 
ing to  such  rules,  canons,  and  institutions,  as  now  are,  or 
hereafter  may  be  duly  made  and  ordained  by  tlic  Church  in 
that  case. 

3d.  Resolved,  That  in  Christian  charity,  as  well  as  of 
duty,  necessity,  and  expediency,  the  Churches  rcj>resented 
in  this  convention  ought  to  contrib'ite,  in  every  maimer  in 
their  power,  towards  supplying  the  wants,  and  granting 
every  just  and  reasonable  request  of  their  sister  Churches 
iu  these  states;  and,  therefore, 

4th.  Resolved,  That  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  White,  and  I  he 
i{ight  Rev.  Dr.  Provoost,  be,  and  they  hereby  arc,  recpiested 
to  join  with  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Seabury,  in  complying  with 


Appendix— No.  19.  335 

i\\e  prayer  of  tho  clergy  of  the  states  of  rilassacliiisetts  and 
Ne\v-llaiiii)shir<;,  for  the  consecration  of  the  Rev.  Edward 
Bass,  bishop  elect  of  the  Churches  in  the  said  states;  but 
that,  before  the  said  bishops  comply  with  the  request  afore- 
said, it  be  proposed  to  the  Churches  in  the  New-England 
states,  to  meet  the  Churches  of  these  states,  with  the  i^riid 
three  bishops,  in  an  adjourned  convention,  to  settle  certain 
articles  of  union  and  disciiiiine  ainon^  all  the  Churches, 
previous  to  such  consecration. 

5rh.  llssolvi'd,  That  if  any  difficidty  or  delicacy,  in  respect 
to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England,  shall  remain  with 
the  Right  Rev.  Doctors  White  and  Provoost,  or  either  of 
them,  concerning  their  compliance  with  the  above  request, 
this  convention  will  address  the  archbishops  and  bishops,, 
and  hope  thereby  to  remove  the  difiicuky. 


No.  19.  Page  143. 

An  Address  to  the  Most  Reverend  the  Archbishops  of  Can- 
terbury and  York. 

Most  Venerable  and  Illustrious  Fathers 
AND  Prela'ies, 

We,  the  bishops,  clergy,  and  laity  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  states  of  New-York,  New-Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Soutli- 
Carolina,  impressed  with  every  sentiment  of  love  and  vene- 
ration, beg  leave  to  embrace  this  earliest  occasion,  in 
General  Convention,  to  offer  our  warmest,  most  sincere,  and 
grateful  acknowledgments  to  you,  and  (by  your  means)  to 
all  the  venerable  bishops  of  the  Church  over  which  you  pre- 
side, for  the  manifold  instances  of  your  former  condescen- 
sion to  us,  and  solicitude  for  our  spiritual  welfare.  But  we 
are  more  especially  called  to  express  our  thankfulness,  for 
that  particular  act  of  your  fatherly  goodness,  whereby  we 
derive,  under  you,  a  pure  Episcopacy  and  succession  of  the 
ancient  order  of  bishops,  and  are  now  assembled,  through 
the  blessing -of  God,  as  a  Church  duly  constituted  and  or- 
ganized, with  the  happy  prospect  before  us  of  a  future  fidl 
and  undisturbed  exercise  of  our  holy  religion,  and  its  exten- 
sion to  the  utmost  bounds  of  this  continent,  under  an  eccle- 
siastical constitution,  and  a  form  of  worship,  which  vvc 
believe  to  be  truly  apostolical. 


33t>  Appendix — Xu.  19. 

Tlie  growlii;;;  prospect  of  tliis  liappy  clill'iision  of  Ciiri.sti^" 
nnity,  and  the  assurance  we  can  give  you  that  our  Cliurches 
are  spreadini:  and  flouri.sliin:^  tlir()U<^liout  llie.se  United 
States,  wo  know,  will  yield  yon  more  solid  joy,  and  be  con- 
sid(;ied  as  a  more  an){)le  rewar(]  (»t"  your  ^^oodness  to  us, 
timn  all  the  praises  and  expressions  ot"  <jratilude  which  the 
ton^rues  of  men  can  bestow. 

It  <iives  US  pleasure  to  assure  you,  that,  durin<!;  the  pre- 
sent sitting  of  our  convention,  the  utmost  harmony  has  pre- 
vailed tiiro!ii;'h  all  our  deliberations,  that  we  continue,  as 
heretofore,  most  sincerely  attached  to  the  laith  and  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England:  and  that  not  a  wish  appears  to 
prevail,  either  among  our  clergy  or  laity,  of  ever  dej)arting 
from  tiiat  Church  in  any  essential  article. 

The  business  of  most  niaterial  conse<pience  which  hath, 
come  before  us,  at  our  present  meeting,  hath  been  an  ap- 
plication from  our  sister  Churches  in  the  eastern  states, 
expressing  their  earnest  desire  of  a  general  union  of  the 
whole  Ej)iscop»il  Church  in  the  United  States,  both  in  doc- 
trine and  discipline  ;  and,  as  a  prinmry  means  of  such  niiiorv, 
praying  the  assistance  of  our  bishops  in  the  consecration  of 
a  bishop  elect  for  the  states  of  j\iassachusetts  and  New- 
Hampshire.  We  therefore  judge  it  necessary  to  acconijjany 
this  address  with  the  papers  which  have  come  before  us  on 
that  very  interesting  subject,  and  of  the  proceedings  we  have 
had  thereupon,  by  which  you  will  be  enabled  to  judge  con- 
cerning the  particular  delicacy  of  our  situation,  and,  proba- 
bly, to  relieve  us  from  any  dilhculties  v.hich  may  be  found' 
therein. 

The  application  from  the  Church  in  the  states  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  New-Hampshire  is  in  the  following  words. 

[Here  follows  the  apphcation  as  in  the  preceding  number.] 

At  the  meeting  aforesaid, 

Voted,  That  the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker  be  authorized  and 
empowered  to  transmit  copies  of  the  foregoing  act,  to  be  by 
him  attested,  to  the  right  reverend  the  bishops  in  Connec- 
ticut, New- York,  and  Pennsylvania;  and  that  he  be  ap- 
pointed our  agent,  to  appear  at  any  convocation  to  be  holden 
at  Pennsylvania  or  New- York,  and  to  treat  upon  any  mea- 
sures that  may  tend  to  promote  an  union  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  throughout  the  United  States  of  America,  or  that 
may  prove  advantageous  to  the  interest  of  the  said  Ciuirch. 

EDWARD  BASS,  Chairman. 
A  true  copv. 
(Attest)  SAMUEL  PARKER. 


Appendix — No.  19.  337 

This  was  acconipanied  with  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Parker,  the  worthy  rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Boston,  to 
the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  White,  dated  June  21st,  1789,  of 
which  the  following  is  an  extract : — "  The  clergy  here  have 
appointed  me  their  agent,  to  appear  at  any  convocation  to 
be  held  at  New- York  or  Pennsylvania  ;  but  I  fear  the  situa- 
tion of  my  family  and  parish  will  not  admit  of  my  being 
absent  so  long  as  a  journey  to  Phiiadelpliia  would  take. 
Wljen  I  gave  you  encouragement  that  I  should  attend,  I 
was  in  expectation  of  having  my  parish  supplied  by  some 
gentlemen  from  Nova-Scotia  ;  but  I  am  now  informed,  they 
will  not  be  here  till  some  time  in  August.  Having,  there- 
fore, uo  prospect  of  attending  in  peisoti  at  your  General 
Convention,  next  month,  I  am  requested  to  transmit  you  an 
attested  copy  of  an  act  of  the  clergy  of  this  and  the  state  of 
New-ilampshire,  electing  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass  our  bishop, 
and  requesting  the  united  assistance  of  the  right  reverend 
bishops  of  Pennsylvania,  New- York,  and  Connecticut,  to 
invest  him  with  apostolic  powers.  This  act  I  have  now  the 
honour  of  enclosing,  and  hope  it  will  reach  you  before  the 
meeting  of  your  General  Convention  in  July. 

"  The  clergy  of  this  state  are  very  desirous  of  seeing  an 
union  of  the  whole  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
take  place;  and  it  will  remain  with  our  brethren  at  the 
southward  to  say,  whether  this  shall  be  the  case  or  not ; 
whether  we  shall  be  an  united  or  divided  Church.  Some 
little  difference  in  government  may  exist  in  different  states, 
without  affecting  the  essential  points  of  union  and  commu- 
nion." 

In  the  like  spirit,  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Seabr.ry,  bishop  of 
the  Church  of  Connecticut,  in  his  letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Smith,  dated  July  23d,  writes  en  the  subject  of  union,  &Co 
as  foUoweth  : — "  The  wish  of  my  heart,  and  the  wish  of  the 
clergy  and  of  the  Church  people  of  this  state,  v/ould  cer- 
tainly have  carried  me  and  some  of  the  clergy  to  your 
General  Convention,  had  we  conceived  we  could  have  at- 
tended with  propriety.  The  necessity  of  an  union  of  all  the 
Churches,  and  the  disadvantages  of  our  present  dis-union, 
we  feel  and  lament  equally  with  you ;  and  I  agree  with  you, 
that  there  may  be  a  strong  and  efficacious  union  betv/een 
Churches,  where  the  usages  are  different.  I  see  not  why 
it  may  not  be  so  in  the  present  case,  as  soon  as  you  have 
removed  those  obstructions,  which,  while  they  remain,  must 
prevent  all  possibility  of  uniting.  The  Church  of  Connec- 
ticut consists,  at  present,   of  nineteen  clergvmen   in  fuU- 

43 


3-33  Appendix— No.  20.        . 

orders,  an«l  morn  tiian  twenty  thousand  people,  they  suppose, 
as  respcctahle  as  the  Church  in  any  state  of  the  union." 

After  the  most  serious  deliberation  upon  this  important 
business,  and  cordially  joiniui^  with  our  brethren  of  thi; 
eastern  or  New-lMi^land  Churclujs  in  the  desire  of  union, 
the  following  resolves  were  unanimously  adopted  in  conven- 
tion, viz. — 

[Ifcre  follow  the  resolves,  as  given  in  the  preccdins; 
number.] 

We  have  now,  most  venerable  fathers,  submitted  to  your 
consideration  whatever  relates  to  this  important  business  of 
union  among  all  our  Churches  in  these  United  States.  It 
was  our  original  and  sincere  intention  to  have  obtained 
three  bishops  at  least,  immediately  consecrated  by  the  l)i- 
shops  of  England,  for  the  seven  states  comprehended  within 
our  present  union.  But  that  intention  being  frustrated 
throuo-h  unforeseen  circumstances,  we  could  not  wish  to 
deny  any  present  assistance,  which  may  be  found  in  our 
power  to  give  to  any  of  our  sister  Churches,  in  that  way 
which  may  be  most  acceptable  to  them,  and  in  itself  legal 
and  expedient. 

We  ardently  pray  for  the  continuance  of  your  favour  and 
blessing,  and  that,  as  soon  as  the  urgency  of  other  weighty 
concerns  of  the  Church  will  allow,  we  may  be  favoured  with 
that  fatherly  advice  and  direction,  which  to  you  may  appear 
most  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  prosperity  of  our  Churches, 
upon  the  consideration  of  the  foregoing  documents  and 
papers. 

Bone  in  Convention,  this  8th  day  of  August,  1789,  and 
directed  to  he  signed  by  all  the  members,  as  the  act  of 
their  body,  and  by  the  presidmt  officially.* 


No.  20.    Page  146. 

A  General  Constitution  of  the  Frotestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America. 

Art.  1.  There  shall  be  a  General  Convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica, on  the  fust  Tuesday  of  August,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  1792,  and  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  August  in  every 


Signed  by  the  president  and  all  the  raerabere. 


Appendix — No.  20.  339 

tliird  year  afterwards,  in  such  place  as  shall  be  determined 
by  the  convention;  and  special  meeting^s  may  be  called  at 
other  times,  in  the  manner  hereafter  to  be  provided  for ; 
and  this  Church,  in  a  majority  of  the  states  which  sliall  have 
adopted  this  constitution,  shall  be  represented,  before  they 
shall  proceed  to  business,  except  that  tiie  representation 
irom  two  states  shall  be  sufficient  to  adjourn;  and  in  all 
business  of  the  convention,  freedom  of  debate  shall  be 
allowed. 

Art.  2.  The  Church  in  each  state  shall  be  entitled  to  a 
aeju-csentation  of  both  the  clergy  and  the  laity;  which  re- 
presentation shall  consist  of  one  or  more  deputies,  not  ex- 
ceeding four  of  each  order,  chosen  by  the  convention  of  the 
state;  and  in  all  questions,  when  required  by  the  clerical 
or  lay  representation  from  any  state,  each  order  shall  have 
one  vote;  and  the  majority  of  suffrages  by  states  shall  be 
conclusive  in  each  order,  provided  such  majority  compre- 
hend a  majority  of  the  states  represented  in  that  order. 
The  concurrence  of  both  orders  shall  be  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  vote  of  the  convention.  If  the  convention  of  any 
state  shoidd  neglect  or  decline  to  appoint  clerical  deputies, 
or  if  they  should  neglect  or  decline  to  appoint  lay  deputies, 
or  if  any  of  those  of  either  order  appointed  should  neglect 
to  attend,  or  be  prevented  by  sickness  or  any  other  accident, 
such  state  shall  nevertheless  be  considered  as  duly  repre- 
sented by  such  deputy  or  deputies  as  may  attend,  whether 
lay  or  clerical.  And  if,  through  the  neglect  of  the  conven- 
tion of  any  of  the  Churches  which  shall  have  adopted,  or 
may  hereafter  adopt  this  Constitution,  no  deputies,  either 
lay  or  clerical,  should  attend  at  any  General  Convention, 
the  Church  in  such  state  shall  nevertheless  be  bound  by  the 
acts  of  such  convention. 

Art.  3.  The  bishops  of  this  Church,  when  there  shall 
be  three  or  more,  shall,  whenever  General  Conventions  are 
iield,  form  a  house  of  revision,  and  when  any  proposed  act 
sliall  have  passed  in  the  General  Convention,  the  same  shall 
he  transmitted  to  the  house  of  revision,  for  their  concurrence. 
And  if  the  same  sliail  be  sent  back  to  the  convention,  with 
the  negative  or  non-concurrence  of  the  house  of  revision,  it 
shall  be  again  considered  in  the  General  Convention,  and  if 
the  convention  shall  adhere  to  the  said  act,  by  a  majority  of 
three-fifths  of  their  body,  it  shall  become  a  law  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  notwithstanding  the  non-concurrence  of  the 
house  of  revision;  and  all  acts. of  the  convcntioii  shall  be 
authenticated  by  both  houses.     And  in  all  cases,  the  House 


340  ApfCKlix — No.  20. 

of  Bishops  shall  signify  to  the  convention  their  approbation 
or  disapprobation,  the  latter  with  their  reasons  in  writing, 
within  two  days  after  the  proposed  act  shall  have  been  re- 
ported to  them  for  concurrence,  and  in  friilure  thereof  it 
shall  have  the  operation  of  a  law.  But  until  there  shall  be 
three  or  more  bishops,  as  aforesaid,  any  bishop  attending  a 
General  Convention,  shall  be  a  member  ex-officio,  and  shall 
vote  with  the  clerical  deputies  of  the  state  to  which  he  be- 
longs.    And  a  bishop  shall  then  preside. 

Art.  4.  The  bishop  or  bishops  in  every  state  shall  be 
chosen  agreeably  to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  con- 
vention of  that  state.  And  every  bishop  of  this  Church  shall 
confine  the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  ofiice  to  his  proper 
diocese  or  district,  uidcss  requested  to  ordain,  or  confirm, 
or  perform  any  other  act  of  the  Episcopal  office,  by  any 
Church  destitute  of  a  bishop. 

Art.  5.  A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the 
United  States,  not  now  represented,  may,  at  any  time  here- 
after, be  admitted,  on  acceding  to  this  Constitution. 

Art.  6.  In  every  state,  the  mode  of  trying  clergymen 
shall  be  instituted  by  the  convention  of  the  Church  therein. 
At  every  trial  of  a  bishop,  there  shall  be  one  or  more  of  the 
Episcopal  order  present;  and  none  but  a  bishop  shall  pro- 
nounce sentence  of  deposition  or  degradation  from  the  mi- 
nistry on  any  clergyman,  whether  bisiiop,  or  presbyter,  or 
deacon. 

Art.  7.  No  person  shall  be  admitted  to  holy  orders, 
until  he  shall  have  been  examined  by  the  bishop,  and  by  two 
presbyters,  and  shall  have  exhibited  such  testimonials  and 
other  requisites  as  the  canons,  in  that  case  provided,  may 
direct.  Nor  shall  any  person  be  ordained,  nnlil  he  shall 
have  subscribed  th(;  following  declaration:  "  I  do  believe 
the  holy  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the 
word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion :  And  1  do  solenndy  engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrines 
and  worship  of  the  Protestant  l']piscopal  Church  in  these 
United  States."  No  person  ordiiined  by  a  foreign  bishop 
shall  be  pernjjtted  to  ofliciatc  as  a  minister  of  this  Church, 
until  he  shall  have  complied  with  the  canon  or  canons  in 
that  case  |)rovided,  and  have  also  subscribed  the  aforesaid 
declaration. 

Art.  6.  A  book  of  common  prayer,  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Church,  articles  of  religion,  and  a  form  and  manner  of 
making,  ordaining,  and  consecrating  bishops,  priests,  and 


Appendix — No.  20.  341 

deacons,  when  established  by  this  or  a  future  General  Con- 
vention, shall  be  used  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  these  states,  which  shall  have  adopted  this  Constitution. 
Art.  9.  This  Constitution  shall  be  unalterable,  uuless 
in  General  Convention  by  the  Church  in  a  majority  of  the 
states  which  may  have  adopted  the  same  ;  and  all  altera- 
tions shall  be  first  proposed  in  one  General  Convention,  and 
made  known  to  the  several  state  conventions,  before  they 
shall  be  finally  agreed  to,  or  ratified  in  the  ensuing  General 
Convention. 

Alterations  in  the  Subsequent  Session. 

"  The  committee  reported,  that  they  have  had  a  full,  free, 
and  friendly  conference  with  the  dcptities  of  the  said 
Churches,  vvho,  on  behalf  of  the  Church  in  their  several 
states,  and  by  virtue  of  sufficient  authority  from  them,  have 
signified,  that  they  do  not  object  to  the  Constitution,  which 
was  approved  at  the  former  session  of  this  convention,  if  the 
third  article  of  that  Constitution  may  be  so  modified,  as  to 
declare  explicitly  the  right  of  the  bishops,  when  sitting  in  a 
separate  house,  to  originate  and  propose  acts  for  the  con- 
currence of  the  other  house  of  convention  ;  and  to  negative 
such  acts  proposed  by  the  other  house  as  they  may  disap- 
prove. 

"  Your  committee,  conceiving  this  alteration  to  be  desir- 
able in  itself,  as  having  a  tendency  to  give  greater  stability 
to  the  Constitution,  without  diminishing  any  security  that  i§ 
now  possessed  by  the  clergy  or  laity;  and  being  sincerely 
impressed  with  the  importance  of  an  union  to  the  future 
prosperity  of  the  Church,  do  therefore  recommend  to  the 
convention  a  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  their  brethren, 
and  that  the  third  article  of  the  Constitution  may  be  altered 
accordingly.  Upon  such  alteration  being  made,  it  is  de- 
clared by  the  deputies  from  the  Churches  in  the  eastern 
states,  that  they  will  subscribe  the  Constitution,  and  become 
members  of  this  General  Convention." 

Upon  special  motion,  the  above  report  was  read  a  second 
time;  whereupon  the  following  resolution  was  proposed, 
viz. — 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  do  adopt  that  part  of  the 
report  of  the  committee  which  proposes  to  modify  the  third 
article  of  the  Constitution,  so  as  to  declare  explicitly  "  the 
right  of  the  bishops,  when  sitting  in  a  separate  house,  to 
originate  and  propose  acts  for  the  concurrence  of  the  other 


34'2  Appendix— No.  20. 

house  of  convention ;  and  to  negative  .such  acts  projwscd  hj 
the  other  house,  as  they  may  disapprove  ;  provided  they  aru 
not  adhered  to  by  four-fifths  of  the  other  house." 

After  some  debate,  the  resolution,  with  the  proviso  an- 
nexed, was  agreed  upon,  and  the  tiiiid  article  was  accord- 
ingly modified  in  the  manner  following,  viz. — 

Art.  3d.     The  bishops  of  this  Church,  when  there  shall  be 
three  or  more,  shall,  whenever  General  Conventions  are  held, 
form  a  separate  house,  with  a  right  to  originate  and  propose 
acts  for  the  concurrence  of  the  House  of  Deputies,  composed  of 
cleriy  and  laity;  and  when  any  proposed  act  shall  have  passed 
the  House  of  Deputies,  the  same  shall  be  transmitted  to  the 
House  of  Bishops,  who  shall  have  a  negative  thereupon,  nnhss 
adhered  to  by  four-fifths  of  the  other  house;  and  all  acts  of  the 
convention  shall  be  authenticated  by  both  houses.     And,  in  all 
cases,  the  House  of  Bishops  shall  signify  to  the  convention  their 
approbation  or  disapprobation,  the  latter,  with  their  reasons  in 
writing,  within  three  days  after  the  proposed  act  shall  have 
been  reported  to  them  for  concur rence:  and  in  failure  thereof, 
it  shall  have  the  operation  of  a  latv.     But  until  there  shall  be 
three  or  more  bishops  as  aforesaid,  any  bishop  attending  a 
General  Convention  shall  be  a  mcmher,  ex  officio,  and  shall 
vote  u'itli  the  clerical  deputies  of  the  state  to  which  he  belongs; 
and  a  bishop  shall  then  preside. 


Acceptance  by  BisJwp  Seabury,  and  the  Prcslyters  from  Keic- 

England. 

October  2,  1780. 

We  do  hereby  agree  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  as 
modified  this  day  in  convention. 

SAMUEL  SEABIIIY,  D.  D. 

Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut. 

ABRAHAM  JARVIS,  A.  M. 

Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Middletoicn,  Connecticut. 

BELA  HUBBARD,  A.  31. 

Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New-Haven,  Connecticut. 
SAMUEL  PARKE]^,  1).  D. 

Rector  of   Trinity    Church,   Boston,   and    Clerical  Deputy  fax 
Massachusetts  and  New- Hampshire. 


Appendix — No.  21.  343 

Letters  of  Consecration  of  Bishop  Seahury. 

IN  DEI  NOMINE.     Amen. 

Omnibus  vbique  Catliolicis  per  Presentes  pafeat, 

Nos,  Ilobertnm  Kilgour,  miseratione  divina,  Episcopum 
Aberdonien — Arthurum  Petrie,  Episcopum  Kosspu  et  Mo- 
ravien — et  Joannem  Skinner,  Episcopum  Coadjutorem; 
Hysteria,  Sacra  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  in  Oratorio 
supradicti  Joannis  Skinner  apud  Aberdoniam  celebrantes, 
Divini  Numinis  Fra^sidio  fretos  (presentibus  tarn  e  Clero, 
quam  o  Popuio  teslibus  idoneis)  Samuelem  Seabury,  Doc- 
torem  Divinitatis,  sacro  Presbyteratus  ordine  jam  decora- 
turn,  ae  nobis  pra?  Vitae  intcgritate,  Morum  probitate  et 
Orthodoxia,  commendatum,  et  ad  docendum  et  regendum 
aptum  et  idoneum,  ad  sacrum  et  subiimem  Episcopatus 
Ordinem  promovissc,  et  rite  ac  canonice,  secundum  Morem 
et  Ritus  Ecclesire  Scoticana>,  consecrasse,  Die  Novembris 
decimo  quarto,  Anno  Mv^e  Christiante  Millesimo  Septin- 
gentesimo  Octagesimo  Q,uarto. — 

In  atjus  Rei  Testimonium,  Instrumento  huic  ( chirographis 
nostris  prius,  munito)  SigiUa  nostra  apponi  mandavimus. 

ROBERTUS  KILGOUR,  Episcopus,  et  Primus.     (L.  S.) 
ARTHIIRUS  PETRIE,  Episcopus.  (L   S) 

JOANNES  SKINNER,  Episcopus.  (L   S  ) 


No.  21.  Page  170. 
A  Letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Colce,  and  the  Answer. 
Right  Rev.  Sir, 

Permit  me  to  intrude  a  little  on  your  time  upon  a  subject 
of  great  importance. 

You,  I  believe,  are  conscious  that  I  was  brought  up  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  have  been  ordained  a  presbyter  of 
that  Church.  For  many  years  I  was  prejudiced,  even  I 
think  to  bigotry,  in  favour  of  it;  but  through  a  variety  of 
causes  or  incidents,  to  mention  which  would  be  tedious  and 
useless,  my  mind  was  exceedingly  biassed  on'the  other  side 
of  the  question.     In  consequence  of  this,  I  am  not  sure  but 


344  , Appendix — No.  21. 

I  wont  further  in  tlio  separation  of  our  Ciiurcli  in  America, 
tlian  3Ir.  Wesley,  from  whom  I  had  rc(;eived  my  commission, 
did  intend.  He  did  indeed  solemnly  invest  me,  as  far  as  he 
had  a  ri^^lit  so  to  do,  with  Episcopal  authority,  but  did  not 
intend,  1  think,  that  an  entire  separation  should  take  place. 
He,  being  presse.l  by  our  friends  on  this  side  of  the  water  for 
ministers  to  administer  the  sacraments  to  them,  (there  being 
very  few  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  then  in  the 
states,)  went  further,  I  am  sure,  than  he  would  have  gone, 
if  lie  had  foreseen  some  events  which  followed.  And  this  I 
am  certain  of — that  he  is  now  sorry  for  the  separation. 

IJut  what  can  be  done  for  a  re-union,  which  I  much  wish 
for;  and  to  accomplish  which,  Mr,  Wesley,  1  have  no  doubt, 
would  use  his  influence  to  the  utmost.''  The  affection  of  a 
very  considerable  number  of  the  preachers  and  most  of  the 
people,  is  very  strong  towards  him,  notwithstanding  the  ex- 
cessive ill  usage  he  received  from  a  few.  My  interest  also 
is  not  small ;  and  both  his  and  mine  would  readily,  and  to  the 
utmost,  be  used  to  accomplish  that  (to  us)  very  desirable 
object;  if  a  readiness  were  shown  by  the  bishops  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to  re-unite. 

It  is  even  to  your  Church  an  abject  of  great  importance. 
We  have  now  above  sixty  thousand  adults  in  our  society  in 
these  states,  and  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  travelling 
ministers  and  preachers;  besides  a  great  number  of  locai' 
preachers,  very  far  exceeding  the  number  of  travelling 
preachers ;  and  some  of  those  local  preachers  are  men  of 
very  considerable  abilities.  Dut  if  wc  number  the  Methodists 
as  most  people  number  the  membersof  their  Church,  viz.  by 
the  families  which  constantly  attend  the  divine  ordinances 
in  their  places  of  worship,  they  will  make  a  larger  body  than 
you  probably  conceive.  The  society,  I  believe,  may  be 
safely  multiplied  by  five  on  an  average  to  give  us  our  stated 
congregations;  which  will  then  amount  to  three  hundred 
thousand.  And  if  the  calculation  which,  I  think,  some 
eminent  writers  have  made,  be  just,  that  three-fifths  of  man- 
kind are  un-adult,  (if  1  may  use  the  expression)  at  any  given 
period,  it  will  follow  that  ail  the  families,  the  adults  of  which 
form  our  congregations  in  these  states,  ainount  to  seven 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand.  About  one  fifth  of  these  are 
blacks. 

The  work  now  extends  in  length  from  Boston  to  the  south 
of  Georgia;  and  in  breath  from  the  Atlantic  to  Lake 
Champlain,  Vermont,  Albany,  Redstone,  Holstein,  Ken- 
tucky, Cumberland,  &c. 


Appendi.c—No.  2L  34i 

But  there  are  many  hinclerancos  in  the  way.  Can  tliey  bo 
removed? 

1.  Our  ordained  ministers  will  not,  ou<Tht  not,  to  give  up 
their  right  of  a'lministeriug  the  sacraments.  1  do  not  think 
that  the  generality  of  them,  perhaps  none  of  them,  would 
refuse  to  sidimit  to  a  re-ordination,  if  other  hinderances  were 
removed  out  of  the  way.  1  must  here  observe,  that  between 
sixty  and  seventy  only  out  of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  have 
been  ordained  presbyters,  and  about  sixty  deacons  (only). 
The  presbyters  are  the  choicest  of  the  whole. 

2.  The  other  preachers  would  hardly  submit  to  a  re-union, 
if  the  possibility  of  their  rising  up  to  ordination  depended  on 
the  present  bishops  in  America.  Because,  though  they  are 
all,  I  think  I  may  say,  zealous,  pious,  and  very  usefid  men, 
yet  they  are  not  acquainted  with  the  learned  languages. 
Besides,  they  would  argue, —  If  the  present  bishops  would 
waive  the  article  of  the  learned  languages,  yet  their  succes- 
sors might  not. 

My  desire  of  a  re-union  is  so  sincere  and  earnest,  that 
these  difficulties  almost  make  me  tremi)le  ;  and  yet  some- 
thing must  be  done  before  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  other- 
wise I  shall  despair  of  success:  for  though  my  influence 
among  the  Methodists  in  these  states  as  well  as  in  Europip 
is,  I  doubt  not,  increasing,  yet  Mr.  Asbury,  whose  influenco 
is  very  capital,  will  not  easily  comply  ;  nay,  I  know  he  will 
be  exceedingly  averse  to  it. 

In  Europe,  where  some  steps  had  been  taken,  tending  to 
a  separation,  all  is  at  an  end.  Mr.  Wesley  is  a  determined 
enemy  of  it,  and  I  have  lately  borne  an  open  and  success- 
ful testimony  against  it. 

Shall  I  be  favoured  with  a  private  interview  with  yon  in 
Philadelphia?  I  shall  be  there,  God  willing,  on  Tuesday, 
the  ITth  of  3Iay.  If  this  be  agreeable,  I  will  beg  of  you 
just  to  signify  it  in  a  note,  directed  to  me,  at  Mr.  Jacob 
Baker's,  merchant.  Market-street,  Pliiladelphia ;  or,  if  yon 
please,  by  a  few  lines  sent  me  by  the  return  of  the  post,  at 
Philip  Rogers's,  Esq.  in  Baltimore,  from  yourself  or  Dr. 
Magaw,  and  I  will  wait  upoti  you  with  my  friend  l>r. 
Magaw.     We  can  then  enlarge  on  these  subjects. 

I  am  conscious  of  it,  that  secrecy  is  of  great  importance  in 
the  present  state  of  the  business,  till  the  minds  of  ymi,  your 
brother  bishops,  and  Mr.  Wesley,  be  circumstantially  known. 
I  must  therefore  beg  that  these  things  be  confined  to  yourself 
and  Dr.  Magaw,  till  1  have  the  honour  of  seeing  you. 

Thus,  vrtu  see,  I  have  made  a  bold  venture  on  your  jio- 

44 


346  Appendix — No.  21. 

nour  anil  candour,  and  have  opened  my  whole  heart  to  yoi? 
on  the  suhjoct,  as  far  as  the  extent  of  a  small  letter  will 
allow  mo.  If  you  put  eipial  confidence  in  me,  you  will  find 
me  candid  and  faithful. 

I  have,   notwitlistandino:,  heon  guilty  of  inadvcrtenciei. 
Very  lately  i  found  myself  obliged  (for  the  pacifying  of  my 
conscience)  to  write  a  penitential  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Jarratt,   which  gave  him   great   satisfaction  :  and  for  the 
same  reason  1  must  write  another  to  the   Rev.  3Ir.  Petti- 
grew.     When  I  was  last  iti  America,  I  prepared  and  cor- 
rected a  great  variety  of  things  for  our  magazines,  indeed, 
almost  every  thing  that  was  printed,   except  some   loose 
hints  which  I  had  taken  of  one  of  my  journeys,  and  which 
I  left  in  my  hurry  with  3Ir.  Asbury,  without  any  correction, 
entreating   that  no  part  of  them   might    be   printed  which 
■would  be  improper  or  ofiensive.     But  through  great  inad- 
vertency (I  suppose)  he  suffered   some  reflections  on  the 
characters  of  tl:€  two  above-mentioned  gentlemen  to  be  in- 
serted in  the  magazine,  for  which  1  am   very  sorry  :  and 
probably  shall  not  rest  till  I  have  made  my  acknowledgment- 
more  i)ublic;  though  Mr.  Jarratt  docs  not  desire  it. 

I  am  not  sure  whether  I  have  not  also  offended  you,  Sir, 
by  accepting  of  one  of  the  offers  made  me  by  you  and  Dr. 
Magaw,  of  the  use  of  your  churches,  about  six  years  ago,  on 
my  first  visit  to  Philadelphia,  without  informing  you  of  our 
plan  of  separation  from  the  Church  of  England.  If  I  did 
oftend,  (as  I  doubt  I  did,  especially  frotn  what  you  said  on 
the  subject  to  3Ir.  Richard  Dellam,  of  Abington,)  1  sincerely 
beg  your's  and  Dr.  Magaw's  pardon.  I  will  endeavour  to 
amend.     But,  alas  !   I  am  a  frail,  weak  creature. 

I  will  intrude  no  longer  at  present.  One  thing  only  I 
will  claim  from  your  candour — that  if  you  have  no  thoughts 
of  improving  this  proposal,  you  will  burn  this  letter,  and 
take  no  more  notice  of  it  (for  it  would  be  a  pity  to  have  us 
entirely  alienated  from  each  other,  if  we  cannot  unite  in  the 
manner  my  ardent  wishes  desire).  But  if  you  will  further 
negotiate  the  business,  I  will  explain  my  mind  still  more 
fully  to  you  on  the  probabilities  of  success. 

In  the  mean  time  permit  me,  with  great  respect,  to  sub- 
•cribc  myself, 

Right  Rev.  Sir, 

Your  very  humble  servant  in  Christ, 

THOMAS  COKE. 
Richmond,  April  24,  1791. 
The  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God,  Bishop  White. 


Appendix — Xo.  21.  34.7 

You  must  excuse  interlineations,  6lc.  as  i  am  just  going 
S.U10  the  country,  and  have  no  time  to  trun:icribe. 


Answer. 

Rev.  Sir, 

My  frienil,  Dr.  Magaw,  has  this  day  put  into  my  hand* 
your  letter  of  the  24th  of  April,  which,  1  trust,  T  received 
with  a  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  subject,  and  of  the 
answer  I  am  to  give  to  God,  for  the  improvement  of  every 
opportunity  of  building  up  his  Church.  Accordingly,  I 
cannot  but  make  choice  of  the  earliest  of  the  two  ways  you 
point  out,  to  inform  you,  that  1  shall  be  very  happy  in  tha 
opportunity  of  conversing  with  you  at  the  time  proposed. 

You  mention  two  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  proposed 
union.  And  there  are  further  difficulties  which  suggest 
themselves  to  my  mind,  15ut  I  can  say  of  the  one  and  of 
the  other,  that  I  do  not  think  them  insuperable,  provided 
there  be  a  conciliatory  disposition  on  both  sides.  8ofar  as 
1  am  concerned,  1  think  that  such  a  disposition  exists. 

It  has  not  been  my  temper.  Sir,  to  desj»ond  in  regard  to 
(he  extension  of  Christianity  in  this  new  world  :  And  in  ad- 
dition to  the  proitiises  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  1 
have  always  imagined  that  I  j)erceived  the  train  of  second 
causes  so  laid  by  the  gowl  providence  of  God,  as  to  be  pro- 
moting what  we  believe  to  be  his  will  in  this  respect.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  feel  the  weight  of  most  powerful  discour- 
agements, in  the  increasing  number  of  the  avowed  patrons 
of  infidelity,  and  of  others,  wiio  pretend  to  confess  the  divine 
authority  of  our  holy  religion,  while  they  endeavour  to  strip 
it  of  its  characteristic  doctrines.  In  this  situation,  it  is 
rather  to  be  expected,  tiiat  distinct  Churches,  agreeing  iu 
fundamentals,  should  nuike  mutual  sacrifices  for  a  union, 
than  that  any  Church  should  divide  into  two  bodies,  without 
a  dirtVjrence  being  even  alleged  to  exist,  in  any  leading  point. 
For  the  preventing  of  this,  the  measures  which  you  may 
propose  cannot  fail  of  success,  unless  there  be  on  one  side, 
or  on  both,  a  most  lamentable  deficiency  of  Christian 
temper. 

1  remember  the  conversation  you  allude  to  with  Mr.  Dei- 
lam  :  i  hope  I<lid  not  express  myself  uncharitably,  or  even 
indelicately.  As  to  personal  ofi'ence  towards  me,  it  is  out 
of  the  ouestion  :   for  I  had  not  at  that  time  anv  connectioo 


313  AppniJix—yu.  '^2. 

with  St.  ruul's  Church.  But  this,  as  well  as  the  other  parts 
of  your  letter,  may  be  discoursed  of  at  the  proposed  inter- 
view. Therefore,  with  assurance  of  the  desired  bocrecy, 
and  witli  requesting  you  to  accept  a  like  ])romise  of  candour 
to  that  which  1  credit  from  you,  1  conclude  myself  at 
present, 

Your  brolher  in  Christ, 

And  very  liumble  servant, 

w.  \v.* 


No.  22.  Page  173. 

Testimonial  uf  the  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrew. 

We,  the  subscribers,  having  met  in  convention,  at  Tar^ 
borough,  in  North-Caroliua,  on  the  28lh  day  of  3Iay,  1794, 
for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  declining  situation  of  tho 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  iu  this  state,  and  having 
chosen  the  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrew  as  a  person  tit  to  be  our 
bishop,  and  worthy  to  be  recommended  for  consecration  to 
that  holy  office — but  being  sensible  that  the  great  distance 
at  which  the  laity  as  well  as  the  clergy  of  this  state  live  from 
each  other,  deprives  us  of  sufficient  persoruil  acquaintanco 
with  one  another  to  subscribe  a  testimonial  in  the  words 
prescribed  by  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  have  thought  it  necessary  and  proper  to 
make  some  deviation  therefrom,  which  we  presume  to  hopa 
will  be  no  obstacle  to  our  laudable  pursuit.  We  therefore 
do  hereby  recommend  to  bo  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  the  said  Itev.  Charles  Pettigrew,  whom,  from  his 
morality,  religious  principles,  piety  of  life,  from  his  general 
reputation  in  a  clerical  character,  from  the  personal  know- 
ledge we  have  of  him,  and  from  his  sufficiency  in  good  learn- 

*  The  writer  of  the  above  answer  kept  silence  on  the  suhjoct  of  it,  except  in 
the  permitted  coniniunicatioa  to  the  bishops,  until  the  sununer  of  1pH)4  ;  when  he 
received,  in  one  day.  two  letters  from  tlie  e.istern  shore  of  Maryland.  One  of 
them  was  from  the  Rev.  Simon  Wilmer.  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  other 
was  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Klaskey,  of  the  Mothodist  coinmuiiion.  In  a  conver- 
sation between  these  two  gentlemen,  the  formt-r  li.id  ali'inned  the  fact  of  Dr. 
Cokc'.s  application,  which  was  dit-believed  by  the  other.  This  produced  their 
respective  letters,  which  were  ?inswered  by  a  statement  of  the  fact.  The  matter 
being  afterwards  variously  reported,  a  copy  of  the  letter^was,  after  son)e  lap.s»of 
time,  delivered  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kemp.of  Maiylind.  and  at  lart  bccaiuo  published 
.n  a  contiovcrey  rai?cd  in  tlie  diocese. 

^  )V,  w. 


Appendix— No,  2d.  349 

in^,  and  soundness  in  the  faitli,  we  arc  induced  to  believe 
worthy  of  being  consecrated  to  that  important  oflice.  Wc 
hereby  promise  and  engage  to  receive  him  as  such  when 
canonically  consecrated  and  invested  therewith,  and  to  ren- 
der that  canonical  obedience  which  we  believe  to  be  neces- 
sary to  the  due  and  proper  discharge  of  so  important  a  trust 
in  the  Church  of  Christ.  And  we  now  address  the  right 
reverend  the  bishops  in  the  several  United  States,  praying 
their  united  assistance  in  consecrating  this  our  said  brother, 
and  canonically  investing  him  with  the  apostolic  office  and 
powers.  In  testimony  w hereof,  wc  hereunto  subscribe  our 
pames,  the  day  and  year  above  written. 

N.  BLOUNT,     1 

J.  L.  WILSON,  I 

J.  GIJRLEY,        ).  Of  the  clergy. 

S.  HALLING,      I 

R.  J.  MILLER,  J 

J.  LEIGH,  M.  D. 

J.  Gil  ION,  M.  D. 

R.  WHYTE,  I  , 

B.  WOODS,  5  sawyers. 

W.  CLEMENTS,  ^Ofthela.ty. 

L.  DESSEAUX, 

W.  GRIMES, 

R.  GODLY, 


No.  23.  Page  171. 
Circular  of  a  Committee  in  South- Carolina. 

Gentlemen,* 

Impressed  with  a  fervent  desire  of  being  beneficial  to  the 
state  in  general,  and  of  supporting  religion  among  us,  we, 
the  subscribers,  being  a  select  committee  from  several  of 
the  united  Episcopal  Churches  in  this  state,  who  met  on 
the  16th  of  last  October,  are  directed  to  address  you.  The 
subject  is  an  important  one,   and  reqiiires  consideration. 


♦  In  the  dociunent  some  of  the  words  are  in  larger  characters  than  the  rest. 
The  same  words  are  here  given  in  italics,  with  the  view  of  making  a  faithfu] 
representation  of  the  instrument :  the  franiers  of  which  were  careful  to  give  thin 
^•xpJanation  of  their  design ;  however  beneath  them  an  attention  to  the  law«  of 
granunar. 


350  Appendix — No.  23. 

From  the  proceedings  of  the  two  hist  General  Conventions, 
hekl   at  Phihulel[)hia  and  JXew-Yorli,   it  has,  with  regret, 
been  tbund  by  the  representatives  of  this  state,  that  the 
intention  of  all  the  eastern  states  was  to  form  two  separate 
houses  of  discussion  on  the  forms  and  propagation  of  re- 
lio-ion.     To  this  all  consented,  not  foreseeing  any  ill  effects 
immediately  arising  from  it.     The  one  composed  of  bishops 
solely,  the  other  of  clergy  and  laity  conjointly;  and  that  a 
full  consent  of  one  house,  together  with  ticu-thin/s  of  the 
other,  must  be  obtained,  to  effectually  carry  any  j)roposition 
into  effect.     But  in  these  two  last  meetings  as  above,  many 
proposed,  that  the   [louse  of  Bishops  should  have  "  an  ab- 
solute negative''  over  the  clergy  and  laity.     To  this  Virginia 
and  South-Carolina  were  tirmly  opposed ;  the  eastern  states 
as  firmly  supported.     The  next  General  Convention  will 
be  held  at  Philadelphia,  where  we  wish  to  be  represented, 
but  upon  the  same  determination,  if  approved  by  the  vestries 
of  our  associated  churches  in  this  state,  of  opposition  to  the 
absolute  negative;  which,  more  than  probably,  will  cause  a 
secession  of  this  state  and  Virginia  from  the  general  associ- 
ation.    Considering  the  situation  we  shall  then  be  left  in, 
we  are  desirous,  by  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  directing 
us  in  our  choice,  to  select  one  from  the  clergy  of  this  state, 
to  be  sent  forward  immediately  to  the  northward,  and  to 
obtain  authority  solely  to  ordain  ministers  for  this  state,  as 
well  as  to  renew  that  ordinance  which  has  too  long  laid 
dormant  in  our  country,  c9nfirmation.     We  have  thought 
proper,  therefore,  to  request  your  opinion  on  the  subject, 
as  we  conceive,  from  many  of  our  rising  young  men  having 
devoted  themselves  to  the  study  of  diviniti/,  and  by  selecting 
some  worthy  and  good  man,  resident  in  a  jiarish,  antl  de- 
sirous of  taking  the  office  of  the  ministry  upon  liim,  and 
having  him  ordained,  we  shall  be  better  enabled  to  have 
our  churches  provided  than  we  are  at  present  by  the  clergy 
which  we  have  of  late  experienced  from   Europe,  or  from 
our  northern  states;  and  as  this  country  will  then  be  their 
native  country,  and  from  being  accustomed  to  reside  in  it, 
the  complaints  of  its  sickliness,  which  have  been  the  great 
ar"-uments  of  desertion  from  their  parishes,  will  in  some 
measure,  if  not  totally,  lose  their  effect :   and  as,  in  that 
case,  the  minister  may  have  some  !)roperty  of  his  own,  the 
subscription  of  parishes  where  small,  will  in  this  manner  be 
rendered  sufficiently  ample;  as  well  as  the  doctrines  pro- 
pagated  consistent   with  the   situation    the   Almighty  has 
been  pleased  to  allot  us.     We  beg  leave  further  to  mention, 


Appendix — No.  24.  351 

i?Gt  with  an  intention  to  bias  your  opinion,  but  as  a  reason 
for  our  present  application,  that  Virginia  has  pursued  the 
steps  marked  out,  and  with  the  blessing  of  heaven  upon 
their  endeavours,  and  under  the  direction  and  guardianship 
of  Y^ishop  Madisun,*  Imve  obtained  sixty  ii;ood  and  rtpu fable 
divines,  men,  if  but  of  moderate  learning,  of  sound  and 
good  morals,  who  have  undertaken  the  ministry,  not  from 
a  desire  of  gain,  but  from  a  desire  of  doing  good,  and 
spreading  the  effects  of  piety,  brotherly  love,  and  charity, 
in  the  several  parishes  where  they  reside.  From  these 
motives,  and  from  the  distressed  situation  we  shall  be  in, 
if  a  secession  takes  place  before  we  are  provided  with  one 
to  confirm  and  ordain,  for  then  we  must  either  take  wdiat 
they  are  pleased  to  send,  or  humbly  entreat  their  favours  to 
ordain  for  us,  which  might  be  refused  after  our  secession, 
we  have  presumed  to  address  you,  lioping  when  these  im- 
portant concerns  shall  come  before  you,  you  will  not  refuse 
to  lend  us  your  aid,  both  in  consulting  in  the  most  public 
manner  the  sentiments  of  our  brethren  at  large,  and  in- 
forming us  of  tliem,  by  a  representative  or  representatives, 
at  our  next  state  convention,  to  be  held  at  St.  Michael's 
Church,  on  the  tenth  day  of  next  February,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  relinquishing  or  carrying  the  above  measures 
into  effect.  And  we  have  appointed  this  day  in  particular 
(anxiously  desirous  of  being  fully  represented,)  as  it  is  the 
day  previous  to  the  anniversary  meeting  of  the  Revolution 
society,  to  commemorate  the  birth  day  of  General  Washing- 
ton, and  conceiving  many  gentlemen  may  be  in  town  upon 
so  pleasing  an  occasion. 

And  we  are,  gentlemen,  with  all  respect  and  esteem, 

Your  humble  servants. 


No.  24.  Page  179. 

A  Letter  from  Bishop  Provoost. 

«'  New-York,  Sept.  7,  1801, 

*■'  Right  Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

"  I  think  it  my  duty  to  request,  that,  as  president  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  you  will  inform  that  venerable  body, 

"  Who  showed  himself  very  indignant  at  the  intended  nompHtnent. 


352  Appendix — No.  24. 

that,  induced  l)y  ill  lirnltii,  and  some  nielnnclioly  occni- 
rcnces  in  my  family,  and  an  ardent  wish  to  retire  from  all 
public  employment,  I  resi<i^ned,  at  the  last  meeting  of  ojir 
l.'Imrch  convention,  my  jurisdiction  as  bishop  of  the  Pro- 
lestant  Episcopal  Chnrcli  in  the  state  of  New- York. 
"  1  am,  w  ith  great  regard, 

'*  Dear  and  Right  Hev.  Sir, 

"  Your  affectionate  brother, 

"  yA3IUEL  PKOVOOST. 
*•  Right  Rev.  Bishop  AVhite." 

The  House  of  Bishops  having  considered  the  snbject 
bronglit  before  them  by  the  letter  of  Bishop  Provoost,  and 
by  the  message  from  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties, touching  the  same,  can  see  no  grounds  on  which  to 
i)elieve,  that  the  contemplated  resignation  is  consistent 
with  ecclesiastical  order,  or  with  the  practice  of  Episcopal 
Churches  in  any  ages,  or  with  the  tenour  of  the  office  of 
consecration.  Accordingly,  while  they  sympathize  most 
tenderly  with  their  brother,  Bishop  Provoost,  on  account  of 
that  ill  health,  and  those  melancholy  occurrences  which 
have  led  to  the  design  in  question,  they  judge  it  to  be  in- 
consistent with  the  sacred  trust  committed  to  them,  to 
recognise  the  bishop's  act  as  an  effectual  resignation  of  his 
Episcopal  jurisdiction.  Nevertheless,  being  sensible  of  the 
present  exigencies  of  the  Church  of  New- York,  and  ap- 
proving of  their  making  provision  for  the  actual  discharge 
of  the  duties  of  the  Episcopacy,  the  bishops  of  this  house 
are  ready  to  consecrate  to  the  office  of  bishop,  any  perso?t 
who  may  be  presented  to  them  with  the  requisite  testimonials 
from  the  General  and  State  Conventions;  and  of  whose 
religious,  moral,  and  literary  character,  due  satisfaction 
may  be  given.  But  this  house  must  be  understood  to  be 
explicit  in  their  declaration,  that  they  shall  consider  such  a 
person  as  assistant  or  co-adjutor  bishop,  during  Bishop 
Provoost's  life,  although  competent  in  point  of  character  to 
all  the  Episcopal  duties  ;  the  extent  in  which  the  same  shal^ 
be  discharged  by  him,  to  be  dependent  on  such  regulations 
as  expediency  may  dictate  to  the  Church  in  New- York, 
grounded  on  the  indisposition  of  Bishop  Provoost,  and  with 
his  concurrence. 


Appendix — Ifo.  25.  353 

No.  25.  Page  186. 
Forms  of  Subscription. 

Form  in  this  Church — "  I  do  believe  the  holy  scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and 
to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation.  And  I  do 
solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and  worship  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States." 

Form  in  the  Church  of  England — The  thirty-sixth  canon 
requires  the  candidates,  after  reference,  first,  to  the  royal 
supremacy  ;  second,  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  with 
the  ordinal;  and  third,  to  the  thirty-nine  Articles,  to  signify 
his  assent  as  follows  : — "  I,  N.  N.  do  willingly  and  ex  animo 
subscribe  to  those  three  articles  above  mentioned,  and  to 
all  things  that  are  contained  in  them," 


No.  28.    Page  190. 

The  house  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  matters 
brought  before  them  by  the  Rev.  Ammi  Rogers,  and  came 
to  the  following  determination  concerning  the  same. 

After  full  inquiry,  and  fair  examination  of  all  the  evidence 
that  could  be  procured,  it  appears  to  this  house,  that  the 
said  Ammi  Rogers  had  produced  to  the  standing  committee 
of  New- York,  (upon  the  strength  of  which  he  obtained  holy 
orders)  a  certificate,  signed  with  the  name  of  the  Rev. 
Philo  Perry,  which  certificate  was  not  written  nor  signed 
by  him. 

That  the  conduct  of  the  said  Ammi  Rogers  in  the  state 
of  Connecticut,  during  bis  residence  in  that  state,  since  he 
left  New-York,  has  been  insulting,  refractory,  and  schis- 
matical  in  the  highest  degree  ;  and,  were  it  tolerated,  would 
prove  subversive  of  all  order  and  discipline  in  the  Church; 
and  that  the  statement  which  he  made  in  justification  of 
his  conduct,  was  a  mere  tissue  of  equivocation  and  evasion, 
and,  of  course,  served  rather  to  defeat  than  to  establish  his 
purpose. 

Therefore,  this  house  do  approve  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Church  in  Connecticut,  in  reproving  the  said  Ammi 
Rogers,  and  prohibiting  him  from  the  performance  of  any 
ministerial  duties  within  that  diocese;  and,  moreover,  are 

45 


354  Appendix — No.  27. 

of  opinion,  that  he  deserves  a  severer  ecclesiastical  censure^ 
that  of  degradation  from  the  ministry. 

In  regard  to  the  question,  To  what  authority  is  Mr. 
Rogers  amenable  t  this  house  are  sensible,  that  there  not 
having  been  previously  to  the  present  convention,  any 
sufficient  provision  for  a  case  of  a  clergyman  removing 
from  one  diocese  to  another,  it  might  easily  happen,  that 
different  sentiments  would  arise  as  to  this  point.  We  are 
of  opinion,  that  Mr.  Rogers's  residence  being  in  Connecticut, 
it  is  to  the  authority  of  that  diocese  he  is  exclusively 
amenalde.  But  as  the  imposition  practised  with  a  view  to 
the  ministry  was  in  Nevv-York,  we  recommend  to  the  bishop 
and  standing  committee  of  that  state,  to  send  to  the  bishop 
in  Connecticut  such  documents,  duly  attested,  of  the  mea- 
sure referred  to,  as  will  be  a  ground  of  procedure  in  that 
particular. 

We  further  direct  the  secretary,  to  deliver  a  copy  of  the 
above  to  the  clerical  deputies  from  Connecticut,  and  another 
copy  to  the  Rev.  Ammi  Rogers.  And  we  further  direct, 
that  either  of  the  aforesaid  jiarties  be  permitted  to  have 
any  documents  respectively  delivered  in  by  them,  a  copy 
of  it  being  first  taken  ;  except  the  petition  and  affidavit  of 
the  Rev.  Ammi  Rogers,  of  which  he  may  have  a  copy  if 
desired,  as  may  either  of  the  parties  have  of  any  document 
delivered  by  the  other  party. 


No.  27.   Page  218. 

Of  the  Homilies. 

The  House  of  Bishops,  taking  into  consideration,  that 
the  two  books  of  Homilies  arc  referred  to  in  the  thirty-fifth 
article  of  this  Church,  as  containing  a  body  of  sound 
Christian  doctrine;  and  knowing,  by  their  respective  ex- 
perience, the  scarcity  of  the  volume,  rendering  it  difficult 
for  some  candidates  in  the  ministry  to  possess  opportunities 
of  studying  its  contents,  propose  to  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies,  to  make  it  a  standing  instruction  to 
every  bishop,  and  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  every 
state  destitute  of  a  bishoj),  to  be  furnished  (as  soon  as  may 
be)  with  a  copy  or  coi)ics  of  said  work,  and  to  require  it  to 
1)6  studied  by  all  candidates  for  the  ministry  within  their 
respective  bounds;  under  the  expectation,  that  when  offer- 


Appendix — No.  28.  335 

ing  for  ordination,  the  knowledge  of  its  contents  will  be 
indispensably  required. 

This  was  concurred  in  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  I^ay 
Deputies. 


No.  28.   Page  219. 
Concerning  Posture  during  PsalmoJy. 

Whereas  a  diversity  of  custom  has  of  late  years  prevailed 
in  the  posture  of  ministers  and  of  the  people,  during  theaci. 
of  singing  the  psalms  and  the  hymns  in  metre;  the  former 
practice  of  sitting  during  this  part  of  the  service  gradually 
giving  way  to  the  more  comely  posture  of  standing;  it  is 
hereby  recommended  by  this  convention,  that  it  be  con- 
sidered as  tiie  duty  of  the  ministers  of  this  Church,  to 
encourage  the  use  of  the  latter  posture,  and  to  induce  the 
members  of  their  congregations,  as  circumstances  may 
permit,  to  do  the  same  :  allowance  to  be  made  for  cases,  in 
which  it  may  bo  considered  inconvenient  by  age,  or  by  in- 
firmity. Practice,  under  this  recommendation,  is  to  begin 
from  the  time  when  suitable  information  shall  have  been 
given  by  the  clergy  to  their  respective  flocks.  And  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  every  minister,  to  give  notice  of  this  recom- 
mendation to  his  congregation,  at  such  time  as  in  his  dis- 
cretion may  be  the  most  proper. 

Tiie  carrying  into  effect  of  the  contemplated  change, 
may  be  delayed  by  the  bishop  of  any  diocese,  or,  where 
there  is  no  bishop,  by  the  ecclesiastical  authority  therein, 
until  there  shall  have  been  time  and  opportunity  of  ex- 
plaining satisfactorily  the  grounds  of  the  measure. 


No.  29.    Page  220. 

Of  a  Proposal  of  new  Anthems,  and  of  Sanction  requested  in 
favour  of  a  proposed  Book. 

The  following  proposition  was  submitted  and  agreed  to, 
and  communicated  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties. 

The  House  of  Bishops  communicate  to  the  House  of 


350  Ajfpendke — No.  30. 

Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  the  following  resolve,  and  the 
following  rule  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  to  be  entered  on 
their  journal  after  being  returned  by  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies. 

There  was  laid  before  the  house,  an  address  from  tho 
Rev.  Dr.  William  Smith,  of  Cotmecticut,  together  with 
sundry  anthems,  selected  from  holy  scripture,  and  adapted 
to  certain  fasts  and  feasts  of  the  Church.  The  object  of 
the  address  is  to  induce  the  establishment  of  the  said  an- 
thems as  parts  of  the  liturgy. 

Whereupon,  Resolved,  That  it  is  not  expedient,  during 
this  convention,  to  go  into  a  review,  either  in  whole  or  in 
part,  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  It  could  not,  how- 
ever, but  give  satisfaction  to  the  bishops  to  recollect,  that 
anthems  taken  from  scripture,  and  judiciously  arranged, 
may,  according  to  the  known  allowance  of  this  Church,  be 
sung  in  congregations,  at  the  discretion  of  their  respective 
ministers.  On  this  occasion,  a  question  arose,  how  far  it 
may  be  proper,  at  any  meeting  of  the  convention,  to  give 
their  sanction,  or  that  of  this  house  in  particular,  to  any 
work,  however  tending  to  religious  instruction,  or  to  the 
excitement  of  pious  affections.  In  reference  to  this  subject, 
it  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  bishops  present,  that  no 
such  sanction  should  be  given.  And  it  is  hereby  made  a 
rule  of  the  house,  that  if  any  application  should  be  made, 
tending  to  such  effect,  it  shall  not  be  considered  as  regu- 
larly brought  before  them. 

The  above  was  returned  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  with  their  respectful  thanks,  for  what  they 
were  pleased  to  call  the  judicious  course  adopted  by  the 
bishops,  in  reference  to  the  two  subjects. 


No.  30.    Page  224. 

Concerning  the  Identify/  of  this  Church  uilh  the  former  Church 
of  Englaiul  in  America. 

The  following  declaration  was  projioscd  and  agreed  to: 
It  having  been  credibly  stated  to  the  House  of  Bishops, 
that  on  questions  in  reference  to  property  devised  before 
the  revolution,  to  congregations  belonging  to  "  the  Church 
of  England,"  and  to  uses  connected  with  that  name,  some 
doubts  have  been  entertained  in  regard  to  the  identity  of 


Aj/pendix—No.  31.  367 

t:he  body  to  which  the  two  names  have  been  applied,  the 
house  think  it  expedient  to  make  the  declaration,  and  to 
request  the  concurrence  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies  therein — That  "  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America"  is  the  same  body  hereto- 
fore known  in  these  states  by  the  name  of  "  the  Church  of 
England  ;"  the  change  of  name,  although  not  of  religious 
principle,  in  doctrine,  or  in  worship,  or  in  discipline,  being 
induced  by  a  characteristic  of  the  Church  of  England,  sup- 
j)osing  the  independence  of  Christian  Churches,  under  the 
different  sovereignties,  to  which,  respectively,  their  allegi- 
ance in  civil  concerns  belongs.  But  that  when  the  severance 
alluded  to  took  place,  and  ever  since,  this  Church  conceives 
of  herself,  as  professing  and  acting  on  the  principles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  is  evident  from  the  organization  of  our 
conventions,  and  from  their  subsequent  proceedings,  as 
recorded  on  the  journals ;  to  which,  accordingly,  this  con- 
vention refers  for  satisfaction  in  the  premises.  But  it  would 
be  contrary  to  fact,  were  any  one  to  infer,  that  the  discipline 
exorcised  in  this  Church,  or  that  any  proceedings  therein, 
are  at  all  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  civil  or  of  the  eccle- 
siastical authority  of  any  foreign  country. 

The  above  declaration  having  been  communicated  to  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  they  returned  for 
answer,  that  they  concurred  therein. 


No.  31.    Page  229. 

From  the  Journal. 

The  House  of  Bishops,  solicitous  for  the  preservation  of 
the  purity  of  the  Church,  and  the  piety  of  its  members,  are 
induced  to  impress  upon  the  clergy  the  important  duty,  with 
a  discreet  but  earnest  zeal,  of  warning  the  people  of  their 
respective  cures,  of  the  danger  of  an  indulgence  in  those 
worldly  pleasures  which  may  tend  to  withdraw  the  affections 
from  spiritual  things.  And  especially  on  the  subject  of 
gaming,  of  amusements  involving  cruelty  to  the  brute  crea- 
tion, and  of  theatrical  representations,  to  which  some  pecu- 
liar circumstances  have  called  their  attention, — they  do  not 
hesitate  to  express  their  unanimous  opinion,  that  these 
amusements,  as  well  from  their  licentious  tendency,  as  from 
the  strong  temptations  to  vice  which  they  afford,  ought  not 


358  App&)uli£ — No.  81. 

to  be  frequented.  And  the  bishops  cannot  refrain  from 
expressing  their  deep  regret  at  the  information,  that  in 
some  of  our  hirge  cities,  so  little  respect  is  paid  to  the 
feelings  of  the  members  of  the  Church,  that  theatrical 
representations  are  fixed  for  the  evenings  of  lier  most 
solemn  festivals. 


Fram  the  Pastoral  Letter. 

Both  to  the  clergy  and  to  the  laity  we  desire  to  say,  but 
most  pointedly  to  the  former,  that  the  Christian  profession 
exacts  a  greater  abstraction  from  the  world  than  that  which 
consists  in  the  abstaining  frotn  acknowledged  sin.  There 
are  practices  so  nearly  allied,  and  so  easily  abused  to  it, 
that  we  conceive  of  a  professor  of  religion  in  duty  bound 
either  not  to  countenance  them  in  the  least  degree;  or,  as 
is  allowable  in  regard  to  some  of  the  matters  contemplated, 
to  avoid  the  so  employing  of  time,  and  the  so  lavishing  of 
affection,  as  puts  into  a  state  of  sin,  although  not  necessarily 
belonging  to  the  subject.  We  would  be  far  from  an  en- 
deavour after  an  abridgment  of  Christian  liberty.  But  we 
cannot  forget,  that  in  a  list  of  the  classes  of  evil  livers, 
there  is  introduced  the  description  of  persons  who  aro 
*'  lovers  of  pleasure  more  than  lovers  of  God;"  nor,  in 
respect  to  the  female  professors  of  religion  in  particular, 
the  admonition,  that  "  she  who  livcth  in  pleasure  is  dead 
while  she  liveth."  V/e  are  aware  of  the  ditticulty  of  draw- 
ing the  line  between  the  use  of  the  world  and  the  abuse  of 
it:  that  being  conceived  of  by  different  persons  eipially 
■jjious  and  virtuous,  according  to  the  diversity  of  luitural 
temperament,  and  of  the  states  of  society  in  which  they 
have  been  placed  by  education  or  by  habit:  but  we  !:now, 
that  where  the  conscience  can  reconcile  itself  to  tl>e  draw- 
ing as  near  to  the  territory  of  sin,  as  it  can  persuade  itself 
to  be  consistent  uith  the  still  standing  on  secure  ground, 
deadness  to  spiritual  good  at  the  best,  but  more  commonly 
subjection  to  its  opposite  is  the  result. 

In  speaking  of  subjects  of  the  above  description,  wo  would 
not  be  understood  to  class  among  them  any  practice  which 
is  either  immoral  in  itself,  or  so  customarily  accompanied 
by  immorality,  that  the  one  is  necessarily  countenanced  with 
the  other.  Of  the  former  descrii)tion,  is  gaming  in  all  the 
variety  of  its  exercise :  and  the  like  may  be  said  of  what- 
ever involves  cruelty  to  the  lower  animals  of  the  creation. 


"Appendix — No.  81.  869 

If  the  same  cannot  be  affirmed  of  works  of  fiction,  and  of 
puttin;^  speeches  into  the  mouthy  of  fei f^ned  characters,  for 
the  purpose  of  instruction  or  of  entertainment ;  yet,  a?  the 
question  is  apphcahle  to  the  exhibitions  of  the  theatre,  such 
as  they  have  been  in  every  age,  and  are  at  present;  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  declare,  unanimously,  our  opinion,  that  it  is 
a  foul  source  of  very  extensive  corruption.     We  lay  little 
stress  on  the  plea,  that  it  is  a  matter  practicable  in  social 
institutions,  to  purge  the  subject  from  the  abuses  which  have 
been  attached  to  it.     When  tliis  shall  have  been  accom- 
plished, it  will  be  time  to  take  another  ground.     But,  in 
truth,  we  are  not  persuaded  of  the  possibility  of  the  thing, 
when  we  consider  that  the  prominent  and  most  numerous 
])atrons  of  the  stage  are  always  likely  to  be   the  least  dis- 
posed to  the  seriousness  which  should  enter  into  whatever 
is  designed  to  discriminate  between  innocence  and  guilt. 
While  the  opinions  and  the  passions  of  such  persons  shall 
continue  to  serve  the  purpose  of  a  looking-glass,  by  which 
the  exhibited  characters  are  to  b€  adjusted  to  the  taste  of 
so  great  a  proportion  of  the  public,  we  despair  of  seeing  the 
stage  rescued  from  the  disgusting  effusions  of  profaneness 
and  obscenity;  and  much  less  of  that  mean  of  corruption, 
more  insinuating  than  any  other' — the  exhibiting  of  what  is 
radically  base,  in  alliance  with  properties  captivating  to  the 
imagination. 

While  we  address  this  alike  to  the  clergy  and  to  the  laity, 
we  consider  it  as  especially  hostile  to  the  usefulness  of  the 
former.  And  even  in  regard  to  some  matters  confessed  to 
be  innocent  in  themselves,  their  innocency  may  depend 
much  on  many  circumstances,  and  of  professional  character 
among  others.  The  ear  of  a  clergyman  should  always  be 
open  to  a  call  to  the  most  serious  duties  of  his  station. 
Whatever  may  render  it  difficult  to  his  own  mind  to  recur 
to  those  duties  with  the  solemnity  which  they  require,  or 
may  induce  an  opinion  in  others,  tliat  such  a  recurrence 
must  be  unwelcome  to  him  from  some  enjoyinent  not  con- 
genial with  holy  exercise,  ought  to  be  declined  by  him.  If 
it  be  a  sacrifice,  the  making  of  it  is  exacted  by  what  ought 
to  be  his  ruling  wish,  the  serving  of  God,  and  the  being 
useful  to  his  fellow-men,  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
the  ministry. 


3&)  Appendix^No.  ^2, 

No.  32.  Page  230. 

Acts  of  the  Convention  of  11^. 

A  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

Whereas,  in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
is  become  independent  of  all  foreign  authority,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical: — 

.  And  whereas,  at  a  meeting  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies 
of  the  said  Ciiurch,  in  sundry  of  the  said  states,  viz.  in  the 
states  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode-Island,  Connecticut,  New- 
York,  New-Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  Maryland, 
held  in  the  city  of  New- York,  on  the  6th  and  7th  days  of 
October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1784,  it  was  recommended 
to  this  Church  in  the  said  states  represented  as  aforesaid, 
and  proposed  to  this  Church  in  the  states  not  represented, 
that  they  should  send  deputies  to  a  convention  to  be  held  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  Tuesday  before  the  feast  of 
St.  Michael  in  this  present  year,  in  order  to  unite  in  a  con- 
stitution of  ecclesiastical  government,  agreeably  to  certain 
fundamental  principles,  expressed  in  the  said  recommenda- 
tion and  proposal : — 

And  whereas,  in  consequence  of  the  said  recommendation 
and  proposal,  clerical  and  lay  deputies  have  been  duly  ap- 
pointed from  the  said  Church,  in  the  states  of  New- 
York,  New-Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  and  South-Carolina: — 

The  said  deputies  being  now  assembled,  and  taking  into 
consideration  the  importance  of  maintaining  uniformity  in 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship  in  the  said  Church,  do 
hereby  determine  and  declare, 

1.  That  there  shall  be  a  General  Convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica, which  shall  be  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  on  the 
third  Tuesday  in  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  178G,  and 
for  ever  after,  once  in  three  years,  on  the  third  Tuesday  of 
June,  in  such  place  as  shall  be  determined  by  the  conven- 
tion; and  special  meetings  maybe  held  at  such  other  times, 
and  in  such  place,  as  shall  be  hereafter  provided  for ;  and 
this  Church,  in  a  majority  of  the  states  aforesaid,  shall  be 
represented  before  they  shall  proceed  to  business ;  except 


Appendix— No.  32.  30t 

fliat  the  representation  of  this  Church  from  two  states, 
shall  be  suliicient  to  adjourn;  and  in  all  business  of  the 
convention,  freedom  of  debate  shall  be  allowed. 

2.  There  shall  be  a  representation  of  both  clergy  and 
laity  of  the  Church  in  each  state,  which  shall  consist  of  one 
or  more  deputies,  not  exceeding  four  of  each  order;  and  in 
all  questions,  the  said  Church  in  each  state  shall  have  one 
vote;  and  a  majority  of  suftVages  shall  be  conclusive. 

3.  In  the  said  Church,  in  every  state  represented  in  this 
convention,  there  shull  be  a  convention  consisting  of  the 
clergy  and  lay  deputies  of  the  congregations. 

4.  "  The  Dook  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration 
of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the 
Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  England," 
shall  be  continued  to  be  used  by  this  Church,  as  the  same^ 
is  altered  by  this  convention,  in  a  certain  instrument  of 
writing,  passed  by  their  authority,  entitled,  "  Alterations 
of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  order  to  render  the  same 
conformable  to  the  American  Revolution  and  the  Constitu- 
tions of  the  respective  States." 

5.  In  every  state  where  there  shall  be  a  bishop  duly  con- 
secrated and  settled,  and  who  shall  have  acceded  to  the 
articles  of  this  general  ecclesiastical  constitution,  he  shall 
be  considered  as  a  member  of  the  convention,  ex  officio. 

6.  The  bishop,  or  bishops,  in  every  state  shall  be  chosen 
agreeably  to  such  rules  as  shall  be  iixed  by  the  respective 
conventions;  and  every  bishop  of  this  Church  shall  confine 
the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  office  to  his  proper  jurisdiction, 
unless  requested  to  ordain  or  confirm  by  any  Church  des- 
titute of  a  bishop. 

7.  A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the  Uniteit 
States,  not  now  represented,  may,  at  any  time  hereafter,  be 
admitted,  on  acceding  to  the  articles  of  this  union. 

8.  Every  clergyman,  whether  bishop,  presbyter,  or  dea- 
con, shall  be  amenable  to  the  authority  of  the  convention  in 
the  state  to  which  he  belongs,  so  far  as  relates  to  suspension 
or  removal  from  office ;  and  the  convention  in  each  state 
shall  institute  rules  for  their  conduct,  and  an  equitable  mode 
of  trial. 

9.  And  whereas,  it  is  represented  to  this  convention,  to 
be  the  desire  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these 
states,  that  there  may  be  further  alterations  of  the  Liturgy, 
than  such  as  are  made  necessary  by  the  American  revolu- 
tion; therefore,  the  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Adminis- 

46 


362  Appendix— No.  32. 

iration  of  the  Sacranient55,  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies 
of  the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  Eng 
land,"  as  altered  by  an  instrument  of  writing,  passed  under 
the  authority  of  this  convention,  entitled,  "Alterations  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  ac- 
cording to  the  use  of  the  Cliurch  of  England,  proposed  and 
recommended  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,"  shall  be  used  in  this  Church, 
when  the  same  shall  have  been  ratified  by  the  conventions 
which  have  respectively  sent  deputies  to  this  General  Con- 
vention. 

10.  No  person  shall  bo  ordained  or  permitted  to  ofiiciato 
as  a  minister  in  this  Church,  until  he  shall  have  subscribed 
the  following  declaration :  "  I  do  believe  the  holy  scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and 
to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation :  And  I  do 
solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and  worship  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  settled  and  determined 
in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration  of  the 
Sacraments,  set  forth  by  the  General  Convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States." 

11.  This  general  ecclesiastical  constitution,  when  ratified 
by  the  Church  in  the  different  states,  shall  be  considered  as 
fundamental;  and  shall  be  unalterable  by  the  convention  of 
tiie  Church  in  any  state. 


Alterations  agreed  on  and  confirmed  in  Convention,  for  ren- 
dering the  Liturgy  conformable  to  the  Principles  of  the 
American  Revolution,  and  the  Consiituiions  of  the  several 
States, 

1st.  That  in  the  suffrages,  after  the  Creed,  instead  of  O 
Lord,  save  the  Jang,  be  said,  O  Lord,  bless  and  preserve  these 
United  States. 

2d.  That  the  prayer  for  the  royal  family,  in  the  Morning 
and  Evening  Service,  be  omitted. 

3d.  That  in  the  Litany  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth,  seven- 
teenth, and  eighteenth  petitions  be  omitted ;  and  that  instead 
of  the  twentieth  and  twenty-first  petitions  be  substituted 
the  following — that  it  may  please  thcc  to  endue  the  Congress 
of  these  United  States,  and  all  others  in  authority,  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial,  tvith  grace,  wisdom,  and  understand- 
ingj  to  execute  justice  and  maintain  truth. 


Appmdix—No.  32.  36S 

4th.  That  when  the  Litany  is  not  said,  the  prayer  for  the 
high  court  of  parhament  be  thus  altered — "  Most  gracious 
God,  we  hu7nbly  beseech  thee,  as  for  these  United  States  in 
general,  so  esjjecialli/  for  their  delegates  in  Congress,  that  thou 
wouldest  be  jjleased  to  direct  and  prosper  all  their  considlations 
to  the  advancejuent  of  thy  glory,  the  good  of  thy  Church,  the 
safety,  honour,  and  icclfare  of  t]ty  peoTple ;  that  all  things  may 
he  so  ordered  and  settled  by  their  endeavours,  upon  the  best  and 
surest  foundations,  thai  peace  and  hapjnness,  truth  and  justice, 
religion  and  piety,  may  be  established  among  ns  for  all  gene- 
rations,'''' ^r.  to  the  end  :  and  the  prayer  for  the  king''s  ma- 
jesty, as  follows,  viz. —  O  Lord,  our  heavenly  Father,  the  high 
and  mighty  Bonier  of  the  unicerse,  icho  dost  from  thy  throne, 
behold  all  the  dwellers  upon  earth  ;  we  most  heartily  beseech  thee, 
with  thy  favour,  to  behold  all  in  authority,  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  in  these  United  States;  and  so  replenish  them 
with  the  grace  of  thy  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  may  alway  incline 
to  thy  will,  and  walk  in  thy  ivay.  Endue  thetn  plenteously  with 
heavenly  gifts;  grant  them  in  health  and  ivealth  long  to  live, 
and  that,  ajter  this  life,  they  may  attain  everlasting  joy  and 
felicity,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.     Amen. 

5th.  That  the  first  collect  for  the  king  in  theCominiinion 
Service  be  omitted  ;  and  that  the  second  be  altered  as  fol- 
lows— instead  of  "  the  hearts  of  kings  are  in  thy  rides  and 
governance''' — be  said,  "  the  hearts  of  all  riders  are  in  thy 
governance  ;^'  and  instead  of  the  words — "  heart  of  George, 
thy  servant,'^  insert — "  so  to  direct  the  rulers  of  these  states,''^ 
^)C.  changing  the  singular  pronouns  to  the  plural. 

tth.  That  in  the  answer  in  the  Catechism  to  the  question 
— "  What  is  thy  duty  towards  thy  neighbour  T^  for  "  to  ho- 
nour and  obey  the  king,'^  be  substituted — "  to  honour  and 
obey  my  civil  rulers,  to  submit  myself,^''  %x. 

8th.  That  instead  of  the  observations  of  the  5th  of  No- 
vember, the  30th  of  January,  the  20th  of  May,  and  the  25th 
of  October,  the  foliovving  service  be  used  on  the  4th  of  July, 
being  the  anniversary  of  independence. 

9tii.  That  in  the  forms  of  prayer  to  be  used  at  sea,  in 
the  prayer  "  O  eternal  God,''''  ^c.  instead  of  those  words — 
*'  unto  our  most  gracious  sovereign  Lord.  King  George  and  his 
kingdoms,^''  be  inserted  the  words — "  the  United  States  of 
America  f^  and  that  instead  of  the  word  "  island''^  be  inserted 
the  word  "  coimtry  f^  and  that  in  the  collect,  "O  Almighty 
God,  the  Sovereign  Commander,^''  ^c.  be  omitted  the  words 
— ''  the  honour  of  our  sovereign,^''  and  the  words  "  the  ho- 
nour of  our  country^''  inserted. 


364  Appendix— No.  32. 

Service  for  the  fourth  of  July. 

With  the  Sentences  before  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer. 

The  Lord  hath  been  mindful  of  us,  and  he  shall  bless  us  j 
he  shall  bless  them  that  fear  the  Lord,  both  small  and  great. 
O  that  men  would  therefore  praise  the  Lord  for  his  good- 
ness, and  declare  the  v^'onders  that  he  doeth  for  the  chil- 
dren of  men» 

Hymn  instead  of  the  Venite. 

My  song  shall  be  alvvay  of  the  loving-kindness  of  the 
Lord  :  with  my  mouth  will  I  ever  be  showing  his  truth  from 
one  generation  to  another.     Psalm  Ixxxix.  J. 

The  merciful  and  gracious  Lord  hath  so  done  his  mar- 
vellous works,  that  they  ought  to  be  had  in  remembrance. 
Psalm  cxi.  4. 

Who  can  express  the  noble  acts  of  the  Lord,  or  show 
forth  all  his  praise.     Psalm  cvi.  2. 

The  works  of  the  Lord  are  great,  sought  out  of  all  them 
that  have  pleasure  therein.     Psalm  cxi.  2. 

For  he  will  not  ahvay  be  chiding ;  neither  keepeth  he 
his  anger  for  ever.     Psalm  ciii.  9. 

He  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our  sins  ;  nor  rewarded 
us  according  to  our  wickedness.      Verse  10. 

For  look  how  high  the  heaven  is  in  comparison  of  the 
earth  ;  so  great  is  his  mercy  toward  them  that  fear  him. 
Verse  11. 

Yea,  like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  own  children ;  even  so  is 
the  Lord  merciful  unto  them  that  fear  him.      Verse  13. 

Thou,  O  God,  hast  proved  us;  thou  also  hast  tried  us, 
iike  as  silver  is  tried.     Psalm  Ixvi.  9. 

Thou  didst  remember  us  m  our  low  estate,  and  redeem 
us  from  our  enemies ;  for  thy  incrcy  endureth  for  ever. 
Psciliih  cxxxvi*  23  ^-l* 

Proper  Psalms'  US,  except  ver.  10,  11,  12,  13,  22,  23, 
to  conclude  with  ver.  24. 

1st  Lesson,  Deut.  viii.  2d  Lesson,  Thcss.  v.  12 — 23d, 
both  inclusive. 

Collect  for  the  Day. 

Almighty  God,  who  hast  in  all  ages  showed  for.th  th^ 


Appendix— No.  32.  S65 

i|jower  and  mercy  in  the  wonderful  preservution  of  thy 
'Church,  and  in  the  protection  of  every  nation  and  people 
professing  thy  holy  and  eternal  truth,  and  putting  their 
sure  trust  in  thee  ;  we  yield  thee  our  unfeigned  thanks  and 
praise  for  all  thy  pahlic  mercies,  and  more  especially  for 
that  signal  and  wo'nderful  manifestation  of  thy  providence 
which  we  commemorate  this  day;  wherefore  not  unio  us, 
O  Lord,  not  unto  us,  but  unto  thy  Name  be  ascribed  all 
honour  and  glory,  in  all  Churches  of  the  saints,  from 
generation  to  generation,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
Amen. 

Thanksgiving  for  the  Day. 

O  God,  whose  Name  is  excellent  in  all  the  earth,  and 
thy  glory  above  the  heavens  ;  who,  as  on  this  day,  didst  in- 
spire and  direct  the  hearts  of  our  delegates  in  Congress,  to 
lay  the  perpetual  foundations  of  peace,  liberty,  and  safety  ; 
we  bless  and  adore  thy  glorious  Majesty,  for  this  thy  loving- 
kindness  and  providence.  And  we  humbly  pray,  that  the 
devout  sense  of  this  signal  mercy  may  renew  and  increase 
in  us  a  spirit  of  love  and  thankftdness  to  thee,  its  only 
Author,  a  spirit  of  peaceable  submission  to  the  laws  and 
government  of  our  country^  and  a  spirit  of  fervent  zeal  for 
our  holy  religion,  which  thou  hast  preserved  and  secured  to 
us  and  our  posterity.  May  we  improve  these  inestimable 
blessings  for  the  advancement  of  religion,  liberty,  and 
science  throughout  this  land,  till  the  wilderness  and  solitary 
place  be  glad  through  us,  and  the  desert  rejoice  and  blossom 
iis  the  rose.  This  we  beg  through  the  merits  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour.     Amcn.^' 


Alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administra- 
Hon  of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of 
the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  th'  Church  of  England, 
proposed  and  recommended  to  the  Frotestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

The    order    for    morning   and    evening    service    daily, 
throughout  the  year. 


*  The  Epistle  and  the  Gospel  were  added  by  the  committee;  agreeably  to  an 
tuthority  which  they  conceived  to  be  vested  in  them. 


363  uippendix—No.  32. 

1st.  The  following  sentences  of  scripture  are  ordered  t« 
be  prefixed  to  the  usual  sentences,  viz. — 

The  Lord  is  in  his  holy  temple  ;  let  all  the  earth  keep 
silence  before  him.     Hab.  ii.  20. 

From  the  rising  of  the  sun  even  unto  the  going  down  of 
the  same,  my  name  shall  be  great  among  the  Gentiles; 
and  in  every  place  incense  shall  be  oftered  unto  my  name, 
and  a  pure  oflering  ;  for  my  name  shall  be  great  among 
the  Heathen,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.     Mai.  i.  IL 

Let  the  words  of  my  mouth,  and  the  meditation  of  my 
heart,  be  alway  acceptable  in  thy  sight,  O  Lord,  my  strength 
and  my  Redeemer.     Psalm  xix.  14. 

2d.  That  the  rubric  preceding  the  absolution  be  altered 
thus — "  A  declaration  to  he  made  hy  the  minister  alone, 
standing,  concerning  the  forgiveness  of  sins. ^^ 

3d.  That  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  word  "  icho''  be  sub- 
stituted in  the  room  of  "  which,''  and  that  "  those  who  tres- 
fass""  stand  instead  of  "  than  that  trespass.'"' 

4th.  That  the  "  Gloria  PatrV  be  omitted  after  the  "  O 
come  let  us  sing,"  ^r.  and  in  every  other  place,  where,  by 
the  present  rubric  it  is  ordered  to  be  inserted,  to  "  the  end 
of  the"  reading  psalms  ;  when  shall  be  said  or  sung  "  Gloria 
Patri,'^  S^c.  or,  "  Glory  he  to  God  on  high,  and  on  earth  peace, 
good  will  towards  men,''  fyc.  at  the  discretion  of  the  mi- 
nister. 

5th.  That  in  the  "  Te  Deum"  instead  of  "  honourable" 
it  be  "  adorable,  true,  and  only  Son;"  and  instead  of  '■'■  didst 
not  abhor  the  Virgin's  womb"  "  didst  humble  thyself  to  he 
horn  of  a  Virgin." 

Gth.  That  until  a  proper  selection  of  psalms  be  made, 
each  minister  be  aiiov.ed  to  m&q  such  as  he  may  choose. 

7th.  That  the  same  liberty  be  allowed  respecting  the 
lessons. 

8th.  That  the  article  in  "  the  Apostles'  Creed,"  "  he 
descended  into  hell,"  be  omitted. 

9th.  That  the  Athanasian  and  the  Nicene  Creeds  be  en- 
tirely omitted. 

10th.  That  after  the  response,  ''and  wiihthj  Spirit,"  all 
be  omitted  to  the  words  "  O  Lord,  show  thy  mercy  upon  us;" 
■which  the  minister  shall  pronounce,  still  kneeling. 

llth.  That  in  the  suffrage,  "  make  thy  chosen  people  joy- 
fid,"  the  word  "  chosen"  be  omitted;  and  also  the  following 
suffrages,  to  "  O  God,  make  clean  our  hearts  wiihin  vs." 

12th.  That  the  rubric  after  these  words,  "  and  take  not 
thy  Holy  Spirit  from  us,"  be  omitted.    Then  the  two  collects 


Appendix— No,  S2.  3GT 

to  be  said:  in  the  collect  for  grace,  the  words  ''be  ordered,'' 
to  be  omitted ;  and  the  word  "  k"  inserted,  instead  of  "  to 
do  alway  that  is.^' 

13th.  In  the  collect  ''for  ike  clergy  and  people,''  read — 
"  Almighty  and  everlasting  God,  send  down  upon  all  bishops 
and  other  pastors,  and  the  congregations  committed  to  their 
charge,"  &fc.  to  the  end. 

14th.  [Here  is  an  erasure  from  the  manuscript :  the  ar- 
ticle beinf?  found  a  repstition  of  part  of  the  thirteenth.] 

15th.  That  the  Lord's  Prayer  after  the  Litany,  and  the 
subsequent  rubric,  be  omitted. 

I6th.  That  the  short  Litany  be  read  as  follows — "  Son  of 
God,  we  beseech  thee  to  hear  us.  Son  of  God,  we  beseech  thee 
to  hear  us.  O  Lamb  of  God,  that  takest  away  the  sins  of  the 
world,  grant  us  ihy  jjeace.  O  Christ,  hear  us.  O  Christ, 
hear  us.  Lord,  ham  mercy  upon  us,  and  deal  noticifh  its  ac- 
cording to  our  si7is,  neither  reward  us  according  to  our  iniqui- 
ties:'    After  which,  omit  the  words — "  Let  us  pray." 

17th.  That  the  Gloria  Patri,  after  O  Lord,  arise,  Sfc.  be 
omitted  ;  as  also  "  Let  us  pray,"  after  "  we  put  our  trmt  in 
thee." 

18th.  That  in  the  following  prayer,  instead  of  "  righte- 
ously have  deserved"  it  be  "  justly  have  deserved." 

19th.  That  in  the  first  w^arning  for  the  communion,  the 
word  "  damnaiion,"  following  the  words  "  increase  your,"  be 
read  "  condemnation;"  and  the  two  paragraphs  after  these 
^vords — "  or  else  come  not  to  that  holy  table,"  be  omitted, 
and  the  following  one  be  read,  "  and  if  there  be  any  of  ycm 
who,  by  these  means,  cannot  quiet  their  conscience,"  8fC.  The 
words  "  learned  and  discreet"  epithets  given  to  the  minister, 
to  be  also  omitted. 

20th.  In  the  exhortation  to  the  communion,  let  it  run 
thus — "  for  as  the  benefit  is  great,  ^c.  to  drink  his  blood,  so  is 
the  danger  great,  if  ice  receive  the  same  unworthily.  Judge 
therefore  yourselves,"  ^'C. 

21st.  That  in  the  rubric  preceding  the  absolution,  instead 
of  "  pronounce  this  absolution,"  it  be — "  then  shall  the  minis- 
ter stand  up,  and  turning  to  the  people,  say"  &fc. 

22d.  That  in  the  baptism  of  infants,  parents  may  be  ad- 
mitted as  sponsors. 

23d.  That  the  minister,  in  speaking  to  the  sponsors,  in- 
stead of  these  words,  "  vouchsafe  to  release  him,"  &i'C.  say — ■ 
'*  release  him  from  sin  ;"  and  in  the  second  prayer,  instead  of 
"  remission  of  his  sins,"  read — "  remission  of  sin." 

24tlu  That  in  the  questions  addressed  to  the  sponsors> 


303  Appendix — Xo.  32. 

and  the  answers,  Instead  of  the  ])resent  form,  it  be  as  follows 
— "  the  sinful  desires  of  tke  Jiesh." 

25th.  "  Dost  tlinii  believe  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith, 
as  contained  in  the  Apostles^  Creed,  and  ivilt  thou  endeavour  t(y 
have  this  child  instructed,  accordini^lyV  Answer:  "  /  do 
believe  them,  and,  by  God's  help,  u-ill  endeavour  so  to  do.''^ 

"  Wilt  thou  endeavour  to  have  him  brought  up  in  the  fear  of 
God,  and  to  obey  God's  holy  ivill  and  commandments^^  An- 
swer: "  I  will,  by  God's  assistance." 

26th.  That  the  sign  of  the  cross  may  be  omitted,  if  par- 
ticularly desired  by  the  sponsors  or  jiarents,  and  the  prayer 
to  be  thus  altered  (by  the  direction  of  a  short  rubric)  "  We 
receive  this  child  into  the  congregation  of  Christ's  flock;  and 
pray  that  hereafter  he  may  never  be  ashamed,"  ^r.  to  the  end. 

27tii.  That  the  address — "  seeing  now,  dearly  beloved,"  ^-c. 
be  omitted. 

28th.  That  the  prayer  after  the  Lord's  Prayer  be  thus 
changed — "  ice  yield,  thee  our  hearty  tliunks,'''  i^-c.  to  "  receive 
this  infant  as  thine  own  child  by  baptism,  and  to  incorporate 
him,"  fyc. 

29th.  That  in  the  following  exhortation,  the  words  "  to 
rerumnce  the  devil  and  uU  his  works,"  and  in  the  charge  to  the 
sponsors,  the  words  "  vulgar  tongue"  be  omitted. 

30th.  That  the  forms  of  private  baptisnvand  confirmation 
bemade  conformable  to  these  alterations. 

3Jst.  That  in  the  exhortation  before  matrimony,  all  be- 
tween these  words,  "  holy  niatrimony,  and  therefore  if  any 
man,"  Sfc.  be  omitted. 

32d.  That  the  words  "  I  plight  thee  my  troth"  be  omitted 
in  both  places  ;  and  also  the  words — "  with  my  body  I  thee 
ivorship;"  and  also — "  pledged  their  troth  either  to  other" 

33d.  That  all  after  the  Blessing  be  omitted. 

.34th.  In  the  burial  service,  instead  of  the  two  psalms, 
take  the  following  verses  of  both,  viz.  Psalm  xxxix.  7,8,  9, 
12,  13,  and  Psalm  xc.  13.  In  the  rubric,  the  word  "  un- 
bapfized"  to  be  omitted. 

In  the  declaration  and  forms  of  iirterment,  beginning--^ 
^^  forasmuch,  as,"  ^r.  insert  the  following — '■'■  Forasmiich  as 
it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God,  in  his  wise  providence,  to  take 
out  of  this  world  the  soul  of  our  deceased  brother,  [sister']  we 
therefore  commit  his  [//er]  body  to  the  ground — earth  to  earth, 
ashes  to  ashes,  dust  to  dust;  looking  for  the  general  resurrection 
in  the  last  day,  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come,  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  at  whose  second  coming,  in  glorious  ma- 
jesty, to  judge  ike  world,  the  earth  and  the  sea  shall  give  up 


Appendix-^No.  Z2,  36^' 

iheirdead;  and.  the  corruptible  bodies  of /hose  loho  sleep  in  him, 
shall  be  changed,  and  made  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  accord-^ 
ing  to  the  mighty  ivorking,  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  all 
things  unto  himself. 

In  the  sentence  "  I  heard  a  voice,""  ^'C.  insert  "  ?f//o"  for 
*'  which." 

The  prayer  following  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  be  omitted. 
In  the  next  collect,  leave  out  the  words  "  as  our  hope  is,  this 
our  brother  doth.''^     For  "  them  that,''''  insert  "  those  who.'''' 

35th.  In  the  visitation  of  the  sick,  instead  of  the  Absolu- 
tion as  it  now  stands,  insert  the  declaration  of  forgiveness 
which  is  appointed  in  the  communion  service  ;  or,  either  of 
the  collects  which  are  taken  from  the  commination  office, 
and  appropriated  to  Ash- Wednesday,  tnay  be  used. 

In  the  psalm,  omit  the  third,  sixth,  eight,  ninth,  and 
eleventh  verses.  In  the  commendatory  prayer,  for  "  miser- 
able and  naughty,''''  say  "  vain  and  fniserable.''^  Strike  out 
the  word  "  purged.'^ 

In  the  '■'■  pi-ayer  for  persons  troubled  in  miml,''^  omit  all  that 
stands  between  the  words  "  affiicted  servant"  and  "  his  soul 
is  full,"  &)'-c.  and  instead  thereof  say  "  affiicted  servant,  ivhose 
sold  is  full  of  trouble,"  and  strike  out  the  particle  "  but,"  and 
proceed,  "  O  merciful  God,"  ^r. 

36th.  A  form  of  prayer  and  visitation  of  prisoners  for 
Rotorious  crimes,  and  especially  |)ersons  under  sentence  of 
death,  being  much  wanted,  the  form  entitled  "  Prayers  for 
Persons  under  Sentence  of  Death,  agreed  on  in  the  synod 
of  the  archbishops  and  bishops,  and  the  rest  of  the  clergy  of 
Ireland,  at  Dublin,  in  the  year  17 J 1,"  as  it  now  stands  in 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Church  of  Ireland,  is 
agreed  upon,  and  ordered  to  be  adopted,  with  the  following 
alterations,  viz. — 

For  the  Absolution  take  the  same  declaration  of  forgive- 
ness, or  either  of  the  collects  above  directed  for  the  visita- 
tion of  the  sick.  The  short  collect  "  O  Saviour  of  the 
world,"  &,'c.  to  be  left  out;  and  for  the  word  '^frailness," 
say  ^^  frailty." 

37th.  In  the  Catechism,  besides  the  alteration  respect- 
ing civil  rulers,  alter  as  follows,  viz.  "  What  is  your  nafne? 
N.  M.  When  did  you  receive  this  name  1  I  received  it  in 
baptism,  whereby  I  became  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church. 
What  was  promised  for  you  in  baptisin  ?  That  I  should  be 
instructed  to  believe  the  Christian  faith,  as  contained  in  the 
Apostles''  Creed,  and  to  obey  God's  holy  will,  and  keep  his 
commandments. 

47 


370  Appendix^No.  32. 

Dosi  thou  think  thou  art  bound  to  believe  all  the  articles  of 
the  Christian  faith,  as  contained  in  the  Creed,  and  to  obey 
God^s  holy  will,  and  keep  his  commandments  7    Yes,  verily,''''  ^-c. 

Instead  of  the  words  "  verily,  and  indeed  taken,''^  say— 
"  spiritually  taken. ''^ 

Answer  to  the  question  "  How  many  sacraments'?  Two^ 
Baptism  and  the  Lord^s  Supper." 

38.  Instead  of  a  particular  service  for  the  churching  of 
women,  and  psalms,  the  following  special  prayer  is  to  be 
introduced,  after  the  general  tlianksgiving,  viz.  Tiiis  to 
be  said  when  any  woman  desires  to  return  thanks.  "  O 
Almighty  God,  we  give  thee  most  humble  and  hearty  thanks^ 
for  that  thou  hast  been  graciously  pleased  to  preserve  tliisicojnan^ 
thy  servant,  through  the  great  pains  and  perils  of  child-birth. 
Incline  her,  tee  beseech  thee,  to  show  forth  her  thankfulness,  for 
this  thy  great  mercy,  not  only  with  her  lips,  but  by  a  holy  and 
virtuous  life.  Be  pleased,  O  God,  so  to  establish  her  health, 
that  she  may  lead  the  remainder  of  her  days  to  thy  honour  and 
glory,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.     Amen.''^ 

39th.  The  commination  oflice  for  Ash-Wednesday  to  be 
discontinued,  and  therefore  the  three  collects,  the  first  be- 
ginning— "  O  Lord,  we  beseech  thee,'^ — 2d.  "  O  most  mighty 
God," — 3d.  "  Turn  us,  O  good  Lord,"  shall  be  continued 
among  the  occasional  prayers ;  and  used  after  the  collect 
on  Ash-Wednesday,  and  on  such  other  occasions  as  the 
minister  shall  think  fit. 


Articles  of  Religion. 

1.   Of  Faith  in  the  Holy  Trinity. 

There  is  but  one  living,  true,  and  eternal  God,  the  Father 
Almighty ;  without  body,  parts,  or  passions ;  of  infinite 
power,  wisdom,  and  goodness  ;  the  Maker  and  Preserver 
of  all  things  both  visible  and  invisible  :  and  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father  before  all 
worlds,  very  and  true  God  ;  who  came  down  from  heaven, 
took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  of 
her  substance,  and  was  God  and  man  in  one  Person, 
whereof  is  one  Christ ;  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified, 
dead,  and  buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us,  and  to  be  a 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  all  men  ;  he  arose  again  from  death, 
ascended  into  heaven,  and  there  sitteth  until  he  shall  return 
to  judge  the  world  at  the  last  day  :  and  one  Holy  Spirit, 


Appendix— No.  32.  371 

■the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life,   of  the  same  divine  nature  with 
ihc  Fatiicr  and  the  Son. 

2.    Of  the  Su^ciency  uf  the  Ilolij  Scriptures  fur  Salvation. 

Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tien:  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be 
proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it 
should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  faith,  or  be  thought 
requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation.  In  the  name  of  the 
holy  scripture  v^^e  do  understand  those  canonical  books  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  of  whose  authority  was  never 
any  doubt  in  the  Church. 

Of  the  Names  and  Numbers  of  the  Canonical  Books. 

Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy, 
Joshua,  Judges,  liuth,  The  First  Book  of  Samuel,  The 
Second  Book  of  Samuel,  The  First  Book  of  Kings,  The 
Second  Book  of  Kings,  The  First  Book  of  Chronicles,  The 
Second  Book  of  Chronicles,  Tlie  First  Book  of  Estlras, 
The  Second  Book  of  Esdras,  The  Book  of  Hester,  The 
Book  of  Job,  The  Psalms,  The  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  or 
Preacher,  Cantica  or  Songs  of  Solomon,  Four  Prophets  the 
greater.  Twelve  Prophets  the  less. 

And  the  other  books  (as  Ilieromc  saith)  the  Church  doth 
read  for  example  of  life,  and  instruction  of  manners  ;  but 
yet  doth  it  not  apply  them  to  establish  any  doctrine;  such 
are  these  following: — 

The  Third  Book  of  Esdras,  The  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras, 
The  Book  of  Tobias,  The  Book  of  Judith,  The  rest  of  the 
Book  of  Hester,  The  Book  of  Wisdom,  Jesus  the  Son  of 
Sirach,  Baruch  the  Prophet,  The  Song  of  the  three  Chil- 
dren, The  Story  of  Susanna,  Of  Bell  and  the  Dragon,  The 
Prayer  of  Ma'nasses,  The  First  Book  of  Maccabees,  The 
t^econd  Book  of  Maccabees. 

All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  they  are  com- 
monly received,  we  do  receive  and  account  canonical. 

3.   Of  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 

There  is  a  perfect  harmony  and  agreement  between  the 
Ohl  Testament  and  the  New;  for  in  both,  everlasting  life 
is  oftered  to  mankind  by  Christ,  who  is  the  only  Mediator 
iietvvcen  God  and  man:    and  although  the  law  given   by 


Sli  Appendix— No.  3:^. 

Moses,  as  to  ceremonies  and  the  civil  ])rece|)t3  of  it,  dotli 
not  bind  Christians  ;  yet  all  such  are  obliged  to  observe  tht 
moral  commandments  which  he  delivered. 

4.   Of  the  Creed. 

The  creed,  commonly  called  the  Apostles^  Creed,  ought 
to  be  received  and  believed :  because  it  may  be  proved  by 
the  holy  scripture. 

5.   Of  Original  Sin. 

By  the  fall  of  Adam,  the  nature  of  man  is  become  greatly 
corrupted,  having  departed  from  its  primitive  innocence, 
and  that  original  righteousness  in  which  it  was  at  first 
created  by  God.  For  we  are  now  so  inclined  naturally  to 
do  evil,  that  the  flesh  is  continually  striving  to  act  contrary 
to  the  Spirit  of  God :  which  corrupt  inclination  still  remains 
even  in  the  regenerate.  But  although  there  is  no  man 
living  who  sinneth  not,  yet  we  must  use  our  sincere  en- 
deavours to  keep  the  whole  law  of  God,  so  far  as  we  possi- 
bly can. 

6.   OfFree-Will. 

The  condition  of  man,  after  the  fall  o^  Adam,  is  such, 
that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his  own  natural 
strength  and  good  works,  to  faith,  and  calling  ujion  God  : 
w^herefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good  works,  pleasing 
and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God  by  Christ 
giving  a  good  will,  and  working  with  us  when  we  have 
that  good  will. 

7.  Of  the  Jvstificatiun  of  Man. 

We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the 
merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith  ;  and 
not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings.  Wherefore,  that  we 
are  justified  by  faith  only,  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine, 
and  very  full  of  comfort. 

8.   Of  Good  Works. 

Although  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits  of  faith,  and 
follow  after  justification,  cannot  put  away  our  sins,   and 


Appetidix^No.  32.  373 

<€ndure  the  severity  of  God's  judgment ;  yet  are  tliey  pleas- 
ing and  acceptable  to  God  in  Clirist,  and  do  spring  out 
necessarily  of  a  true  and  lively  faith  ;  insomuch  that  by 
them  a  lively  faith  may  be  as  evidently  known,  as  a  tree 
discerned  by  the  fruit. 

9.   Of  Christ  alone  without  Sin. 

Christ,  by  taking  human  nature  on  him,  was  made  like 
unto  us  in  all  things,  sin  only  excepted.  He  was  a  lamb 
without  spot,  and  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  once  offered, 
made  atonement  and  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  v/orld  ; 
and  sin  was  not  in  him.  But  all  mankind  besides,  although 
baptized  and  born  again  in  Christ,  do  offend  in  many  things. 
For  if  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 
truth  is  not  in  us. 

10.   Of  Sin  after  Baptism. 

They  who  fall  into  sin  after  baptism  may  be  renewed  by 
repentance :  for  although  after  we  have  received  God's 
grace,  we  may  depart  from  it  by  falling  into  sin  ;  yet,  through 
the  assistance  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  we  may  by  repentance 
and  the  amendment  of  our  lives,  be  restored  again  to  his 
favour.  God  will  not  deny  forgiveness  of  sins  to  those  who 
truly  repent,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right ;  but  all 
such  through  his  mercy  in  Christ  Jesus,  shall  save  their 
souls  alive. 

11.   Of  Predestination. 

Predestination  to  life,  with  respect  to  every  man's  salva- 
tion, is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  secret  to  us ;  and 
the  right  knowledge  of  what  is  revealed  concerning  it,  is 
full  of  comfort  to  such  truly  religious  Christians,  as  feel  in 
themselves  the  Spirit  of  Christ  mortifying  the  works  of 
their  flesh  and  earthly  affections,  and  raising  their  minds 
to  heavenly  things.  But  we  must  receive  God's  promises 
as  they  are  generally  declared  in  holy  scripture,  and  do 
his  will,  as  therein  is  expressly  directed :  for  without  holi- 
ness of  life  no  man  shall  be  saved. 


374  Appendix — No.  32. 

12.    Of  ublaining  eternal   Salvation  onlij  by  the  Name  uf 

Christ. 

They  are  to  be  accounted  presumptuous,  who  say,  tiiat 
every  inau  shall  be  savetl  by  the  law  or  sect  whicii  he  pro- 
fesseth,  so  that  he  be  dilii^eiit  to  frame  his  life  accordini;-  to 
that  law,  and  the  light  of  nature.  For  holy  scripture  doth 
set  out  unto  us  only  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  men 
must  be  saved. 

13.   Of  the  Church  ami  its  Authority. 

The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithfid 
men,  wherein  the  true  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the 
sacraments  are  duly  administered,  according  to  Christ's 
ordinance  in  all  things  requisite  and  necessary:  and  every 
Church  hath  power  to  ordain,  change,  and  abolish  rites  and 
ceremonies,  for  the  more  decent  order  and  good  govern- 
ment thereof;  so  that  all  things  be  done  to  edifying.  But 
it  is  not  lawful  for  the  Church  to  ordain  any  thing  contrary 
to  God's  word,  nor  so  to  expound  the  scripture,  as  to  make 
one  part  seem  repugnant  to  another ;  nor  to  decree  or  en- 
force any  thing  to  be  believed  as  necessary  to  salvation, 
that  is  not  contained  in  the  scriptures.  General  Councils 
and  Churches  are  hable  to  err,  and  have  erred,  even  in 
matters  of  faith  and  doctrine,  as  well  as  in  their  cere- 
monies. 

14.   Of  Ministering  in  the  Congregation. 

It  is  not  lawfid  for  any  tnan  to  take  upon  him  the  oflice 
of  i)ublic  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in  the 
congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully  called,  and  sent  to 
execute  the  same.  And  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully 
called  and  sent,  who  are  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by 
men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the 
congregation,  to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's 
vineyard. 

15.   Of  tlie  Sacraments. 

Sacraments  ordained  by  Ciirist  are  not  merely  badges  or 
tokens  of  Christian  men's  profession  ;  but  rather  certain 
sure  witnesses,  and  effectual  signs  of  grace,  and  God's  good 
will  towards  us,  by  which  he  doth  work  invisibly  in  us,  and 


Appendix — No.  32.  375 

<loth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  ami  confirm  our 
faith  in  him. 

There  are  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord 
in  the  gospel,  that  is  to  say,  baptism,  and  the  supper  of  the 
Lord. 

16.   Of  Baptism. 

15aptisni  is  not  merely  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of 
diflerence,  \vheret)y  Christian  men  are  discerned  from 
others  that  are  not  christened  ;  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  re- 
generation, or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument, 
they  ^'ho  receive  baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into  the 
Church;  the  promises  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  of  our 
adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are 
visibly  signed  and  sealed  ;  faith  is  confirmed,  and  grace 
increased  by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God.  The  baptism  of 
young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the  Church, 
as  most  agreeable  to  the  institution  of  Christ. 

17.   Of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  supper  of  the  Lord  is  not  merely  a  sign  of  the  love 
that  Christians  ought  to  have  among  themselves  one  to 
another  ;  but  rather  is  a  sacrament  of  our  redemption  by 
Christ's  death  :  insomuch  that  to  such  as  rightly,  worthily, 
and  with  faith  receive  the  same,  the  bread  which  we  break 
is  a  partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  likewise  the  cup 
of  blessing  is  a  partaking  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Transubstantiation  (or  the  change  of  the  substance  of 
bread  and  wine)  in  the  supper  of  the  Lord,  cannot  be 
proved  by  holy  writ :  but  is  repugnant  to  the  plain  words 
of  scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  and 
hath  given  occasion  to  many  superstitions. 

The  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the 
supper  of  the  Lord,  only  after  an  heavenly  and  spiritual 
manner.  And  the  mean  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is 
received  and  eaten  in  the  supper,  is  faith. 

18.   Of  the  one  Oblation  of  Christ  upon  the  Cross. 

The  offering  of  Christ  once  made,  is  that  perfect  re- 
demption, propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  both  original  and  actual  :  and  there  is 
none  other  satisfaction  for  sin  but  that  alone. 


37G  Appendix— No.  32^, 

10.   Of  Consecration  and  Ordination^ 

The  book  of  consecration  of  bishops  and  ordering  of 
priests  and  deacons,  except  such  parts  as  require  any  oaths 
inconsistent  with  the  American  revokition,  is  to  be  adopted, 
as  containing  all  things  necessary  to  such  consecration  and 
ordering. 

20.   Of  a  Christian  Man^s  Oath. 

The  Christian  religion  doth  not  prohibit  any  man  from 
taking  an  oath,  when  required  by  the  magistrate  in  testi- 
mony of  truth :  but  all  vain  and  rash  swearing  is  forbidden 
by  the  holy  scriptures. 

Ordered,  that  the  plan  for  obtaining  consecration  be 
again  read :  which  being  done,  the  same  was  agreed  to, 
and  is  as  follows  : — 

[The  plan  follows  in  the  instrument,  but  is  here  omitted, 
because  given  in  No.  5,  p.  295.] 

Done  in  Philadelphia,  Christ  Church,  in  convention  of 
the  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  states  under-mentioned,  this  fifth  day  of 
October,  1785.  [Signed  by  the  president  and  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  convention,  ranged  according  to  their  respective 
states :  as  was  also  the  address  to  the  English  prelates, 
published  in  the  journal  of  1T86.] 

Extracts  from  the  Journal. 

Resolved,  That  the  Liturgy  shall  be  used  in  this  Church 
as  accommodated  to  the  revolution,  agreeably  to  the  alter- 
ations now  approved  of  and  ratified  by  this  convention. 

On  motion.  Resolved,  That  the  fourth  of  July  shall  be 
observed  by  this  Church  for  ever,  as  a  day  of  thanksgiving 
to  Almighty  Cod,  for  the  inestimable  blessings  of  religious 
and  civil  liberty  vouchsafed  to  the  United  States  of  America. 

On  motion.  Resolved,  That  the  first  Thursday  in  Novem- 
ber in  every  year  for  ever,  shall  be  observed  by  this  Church 
as  a  day  of  general  thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God,  for  the 
fruits  of  the  earth,  and  for  all  the  other  blessings  of  his 
merciful  providence.* 

"  The  preparing  of  a  suitable  service  was  left  to  the  conimittee. 


Appendix— Xo.  33.  3tt 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  apj)ointe(l  to  publish  tlie 
iJook  of  Common  Prayer,  with  the  alterations,  as  well  as 
those  now  ratified,  in  order  to  render  the  liturgy  consistent 
with  the  American  revolution,  and  the  constitutions  of  the 
respective  states,  as  the  alterations  and  new  offices  recom- 
mended to  this  Church  ;  and  that  the  book  be  accompanied 
with  a  proper  preface  or  address,  setting  forth  the  reason 
and  expediency  of  the  alterations;  and  tliat  the  committee 
have  the  liberty  to  make  verbal  and  grammatical  correc- 
tions ;  but  in  such  raanner  as  that  nothing  in  form  or  sub- 
stance be  altered. 

The  committee  appointed  were  the  Rev.  Dr.  White, 
(president)  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wharton. 

Ordered,  Tliat  the  said  committee  be  authorized  to  dis- 
pose of  the  copies  of  the  Common  Prayer  when  printed  ; 
and  that  after  defraying  all  expenses  incurred  therein,  they 
remit  the  nett  profits  to  the  treasurers  of  the  several  cor- 
porations and  societies  for  the  Relief  of  the  Widows  and 
Children  of  deceased  Clergymen  in  the  states  represented 
in  this  convention  ;  the  profits  to  be  equally  divided  among 
the  said  societies  and  corporations. 

Resolved,  That  the  same  committee  be  authorized  to 
publish,  with  the  Kook  of  Common  Prayer,  such  of  the 
i*eading  and  singing  psalms,  and  such  a  calendar  of  proper 
lessons  for  the  different  Sundays  and  holy  days  throughout 
the  year,  as  they  may  think  proper. 

|T/fc  Appendix  of  the  first  edition  here  concluded. \ 


No.  33.    Page  53. 

The  bishops,  in  the  use  of  the  office  of  Confirmation, 
finding  that  the  preface  is  frequently  not  well  suited  to  the 
age  and  character  of  those  who  are  presented  for  this  holy 
ordinance,  imanimouslj/  propose  the  following  resolution  : — 

Resolved,  That  after  the  present  preface  in  the  office  of 
Confirmation,  the  following  be  inserted,  to  be  used  instead 
of  the  former,  at  the  discretion  of  the  bishop  : — "  It  appears 
from  holy  scripture,  that  the  apostles  laid  their  hands  ou 
those  who  were  baptized  ;  and  this  ordinance,  styled  by  the 
Apostle  Paul,  the  '  laying  on  of  hands,'  and  ranked  by  him 
among  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  has  been 
retained  in  the  Church,  under  the  name  of  Confirmation ; 

48 


378  Appendix — Xo.  34. 

and  is  very  convenient,  and  proper  to  be  observed,  to  the 
oiul  that  persons  lieing-  siilliciently  instructed  in  what  they 
promised,  or  uliat  was  promised  for  them  in  their  baptism, 
and  bein;;^,  in  other  respects,  duly  (puiHfied,  may  tiiemselves, 
with  their  own  mouth  and  consent,  openly  before  the  Church, 
ratify  and  confirm  the  same,  and  also  promise,  that  by  the 
grace  of  God,  they  will  evermore  endeavour  themselves 
faithfully  to  observe  such  things  as  they,  by  their  own  con- 
fession, have  assented  unto.'^ 

And  to  correct  the  injurious  misapprehension,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  certain  terms  in  the  first  collect  in  the  Office  of 
Confirmation,  the  bishops  iui(mi7}ious/^  propose  the  following 
resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  after  the  first  collect  in  the  Office  of  Con- 
firmation, tlie  following  be  inserted,  to  be  used  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  bishop,  instead  of  the  first  collect,  "  Almighty 
and  everliving  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed,  in  baptism,  to 
regenerate  these  thy  servants,  by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
thus  giving  them  a  title  to  all  the  blessings  of  thy  covenant 
of  grace  and  mercy,  in  thy  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  now  dos't 
graciously  confirm  unto  them,  ratifying  tlie  promises  then 
made,  all  their  holy  privileges  ;  grant  unto  them,  we  beseech 
thee,  O  Lord,  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  strengthen 
them  with  the  pov/er  of  this  divine  Comforter;  and  daily 
increase  in  them  thy  manifold  gifts  of  grace,  the  spirit  of 
wisdom  and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and  ghostly 
strength,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  true  godliness;  and 
fill  them,  O  Lord,  with  the  spirit  of  thy  holy  fear,  now  and 
for  ever.     Amen." 


No.  34.   Paffc  256. 


to' 


In  the  convention  of  1821,  the  House  of  Bishops  com- 
municated to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Beputies,  their 
disapprobation  of  what  they  conceived  to  be  a  mistaken 
construction  of  the  last  rubric  in  the  service  for  the  admi- 
nistration of  the  communion.  The  reasons  on  which  their 
objection  to  the  construction  was  founded,  are  recorded  in 
the  Appendix  to  the  journal  of  that  year;  and  it  is  their 
intention  to  cause  it  to  be  entered  on  the  journal  of  their 
present  transactions.     It  is  as  follows; — 


AppeiuUx — No.  34.  379' 

Concerning^  the  last  Rubric  in  the  Covnnunion  Service. 

The  House  of  Bishops  being  informed  of  what  they  con- 
{.ider  as  a  great  misunderstanding,  in  various  places,  of  the 
rubric  at  the  end  of  the  Communion  Service,  think  it  their 
duty  to  declare  their  sense  of  the  same,  and  to  communicate 
it  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 

In  the  Common  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England, 
the  words  in  xhe  parenthesis  are — "  if  there  be  no  commu- 
nion." In  the  review  of  1789,  it  was  put — "  if  there  be  no 
sermon  or  comniunioa" — and  this  has  been  interpreted  to 
mean,  that  if  there  be  a  sermon,  what  has  been  called  the 
ante-communion  service  is  to  be  omitted — against  this  con- 
struction the  bishops  object  as  follows  : — 

1st.  The  construction  rests  on  inference ;  deduced  in 
contrariety  to  the  positive  direction — "  Then  shall  follow 
the  sermon."  Had  an  exception  been  intended,  it  would 
doubtless  have  been  expressed  positively,  as  in  other  ru- 
brics. Further,  the  rubric  in  question  prescribes,  that 
*'  when  tiicre  is  a  communion,  the  minister  shall  return  to 
the  Lord's  table;"  which  presumes  him  to  have  been  there 
before,  in  the  ante-communion  service,  unless  in  the  per- 
mitted alternative  of  some  other  place. 

2d.  The  argument  on  the  other  side  proves  too  much, 
and  therefore  nothing.  It  is  said  of  those  who  urge  it,  that 
they  conceive  themselves  bound  to  use  the  wiiole  service  on 
a  communion  day;  whereas  it  should  be  dispensed  with,  on 
the  same  principle  on  which  it  is  supjiosed  to  be  superseded 
by  the  sermon.  On  the  other  hand,  if  there  being  either  a 
sermon,  or  the  communion  should  be  thought  to  warrant  the 
omission  ;  can  it  be,  that  the  convention  designed  to  leave 
in  the  book  the  ante-communion  service,  with  all  the  collects, 
the  gospels,  and  the  epistles  attached  to  them,  to  be  little 
more  than  dead  letter;  never  to  be  used,  except  on  the  few 
occasions  vvhen  the  said  service  is  unconnected  with  either 
of  the  said  provisions?  For  it  is  not  required  to  be  used 
either  with  the  morning  or  with  the  evening  prayer. 

8d.  There  is  a  rubric  prescribing  the  place  in  the  service, 
at  which  notice  shall  be  given  of  holy  days,  &c.  Can  it  be 
supposed,  that  a  provision  of  this  sort  was  intended  to  be 
done  away,  hot  professedly,  but  indirectly  ?  and  that  even 
there  should  be  no  provision  for  notifying  the  communion  ? 

4tii.  It  is  understood,  that  the  morning  prayer,  and  the 
administration  of  the  communion,  were  designed  to  be  dis- 
tinct services,  to  be  used  at  different  times  of  the  day.. 


380  Appendix — No.  34. 

Probably,  at  the  time  of  the  reformation,  the  practice  wa« 
generally  conformable  to  the  provision ;  and  it  is  said  to 
prevail  at  present  in  some  places  in  England.  Now,  al- 
though there  is  probably  no  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  which  the  same  can  be  aftirmed ;  yet,  why  raise  a  bar 
against  so  reasonable  and  so  godly  a  practice  i*  an  effort 
for  which,  would  reduce  the  whole  to  the  sermon  ;  except 
when  the  communion  were  to  be  administered;  and  then 
there  would  be  the  latter  part  of  the  service  only. 

5th.  The  construction  casts  a  blemish  on  the  observance 
of  every  festival  of  our  Church.  To  speak  in  particular  of 
Easter  Sunday,  Whitsunday,  and  Christmas  day  ;  can  it  be 
supposed,  that  the  convention  intended  to  abrogate  the 
reading  of  the  portions  of  scripture,  the  most  pertinent  of 
any  in  the  Bible  ?  or  that  the  members  of  the  body  were  so 
careless,  as  not  to  perceive  the  effect  of  the  word  introduced 
by  them  into  the  parenthesis?  Neither  of  these  was  the 
case;  although  they  had  not  the  sagacity  to  foresee  the  use 
which  would  be  made  of  their  super-addition:  a  use,  which 
may  be  applied  hereafter  to  the  abandoning  of  the  observ- 
ance of  those  festivals.  For  why  should  the  Church  retain 
them,  after  dispensing  with  whatever  is  attached  to  them 
in  the  respective  services.  The  remark  applies  equally  to 
the  two  days  of  fasting  or  abstinence — Good  Friday  and 
Ash  Wednesday.  It  is  here  supposed,  that  on  the  former, 
there  are  the  service  and  sermons  in  all  our  churches  fur- 
nished with  the  ministry.  But  according  to  the  opposite 
opinion,  the  sermon  dis()enscs  with  the  recital  of  the  con- 
summation of  our  Saviour's  sufferings,  and  not  only  on 
Good  Friday,  but  on  every  day  of  Passion  week,  if  there  be 
sermons.     Could  this  have  been  intended? 

Cth.  There  is  the  magnitude  of  the  change  thus  made  in 
the  liturgy,  without  the  subjecting  of  the  resulting  conse- 
quences to  the  consideration  of  any  General  Convention  : 
for  this  is  here  affirmed,  without  the  apprehension  of  con- 
tradiction from  any  of  the  surviving  members.  The  most 
obvious  of  the  consecpienccs,  and  such  as  could  not  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  the  least  attentive,  were  the  dispens- 
ing with  the  reading  of  the  Ten  Commandments;  the  weekly 
return  of  which  may  well  be  thought  to  have  a  beneficial 
effect  on  morals  ;  and  the  deranging  of  a  selection  of  pass- 
ages of  scripture,  always  supposed  to  have  been  made  with 
great  judgment,  and  suited  to  the  different  seasons  of  the 
year.  They  were  of  like  use  in  the  Church  before  the 
prevalence  of  the  corruptions  of  the  Papacy  ;   have  with- 


Appendix — No,  34.  381 

stood,  in  some  measure,  its  systoiiiatic  hosLiliry  to  a  general 
knowledge  of  the  scriptures ;  and,  probably,  have  prevented 
a  greater  enormity  of  unevangelical  error,  than  what  wo 
now  find:  for  although  the  selections  were  in  Latin,  they 
were  at  least  instructive  to  the  many  who  understood  the 
language,  at  a  time  when  even  among  that  description  of 
people,  the  possession  of  a  Bible  was  rare.  To  the  jiresent 
day,  they  are  held  in  a  high  esteem,  not  only  by  our  parent 
Church,  but  by  the  Lutheran  Churches  of  Sweden,  of  Den- 
mark, of  sundry  German  principalities,  and  of  this  country. 
In  some  of  the  European  states,  the  subject  of  the  serraoQ 
is  expected  to  he  taken  from  the  epistle,  or  from  the  gospel 
for  the  Sunday.  There  seems  no  reasonable  objection,  in 
any  future  review  of  the  liturgy,  to  the  making  of  some 
abbreviation,  suited  to  the  joining  of  services  designed  to 
be  distinct:  but  there  may  be  doubted  the  expediency  of 
making  so  great  an  inroad  as  that  projected  on  the  service 
now  in  question. 

7th.  The  ante-€onimunion  service  continued  to  be  used 
as  before,  by  the  clergy  who  were  present  in  the  convention, 
in  which  it  is  now  imagined  to  have  been  dispensed  with. 
It  is  confidently  believed,  that  there  was  not  an  exception 
of  an  individual ;  although,  on  the  other  side,  the  jnajor 
number  must  be  supposed  to  have  been  desirous  of  the 
innovation.  In  the  interpretation  of  a  law,  immediate 
practice  under  it  has  been  held  to  be  a  good  expositor  ; 
especially  when,  as  in  the  present  case,  a  contrary  sense 
had  not  been  heard  offer  a  long  course  of  years. 

The  question  may  occurs — Why  did  the  conventioii  intro- 
duce the  words  "sermon  or,"  into  the  parenthesis?  It 
was  to  reconcile  the  other  rubric  referred  to,  with  frequent 
and  allowable  practice.  The  said  rubric  says — "  then  shall 
follow  the  sermon."  Perhaps,  when  the  service  was  com- 
piled there  was  a  sermon  on  every  saint's  day,  as  well  as 
on  every  principal  festival.  In  modern  usage  it  has  been 
otherwise  ;  which  made  it  convenient  to  provide  for  the  mi- 
nister's proceeding  to  the  Blessing.  The  parenthesis  means, 
that  although  there  be  i!o  sermon,  or  although  there  be  no 
communion,  the  minister  shall  act  as  directed  by  the  rubric. 

The  bishops  therefore  deem  it  their  duty  to  express  the 
decided  opinion,  that  the  rubrics  of  the  Communion  Service, 
as  well  as  other  general  considerations,  enjoin  the  use  of 
that  part  which  precedes  the  sermon,  on  all  occasions  of 
sermon  or  communion,  as  well  as  on  those  festivals  and 
fasts  when  neither  sermon  nor  communion  occurs. 


332  Appendix — Xu.  34. 

ITavinf^  rcviowet'  the  above  instrmiient,  we  are  not  only 
confirmed  in  our  opinion  therein  expressed,  but  have  an 
increased  opinion  of  the  evils,  and  of  the  dangers  to  which 
the  contrary  tends. 

Of  these,  altliough  not  among  the  most  material,  yet 
worthy  of  notice,  is  its  occasional  standing  in  the  way  of  a 
courteous  interchange  of  ministerial  services  among  the 
clergy.  Those  of  the  body,  who  conceive  of  themselves  to 
be  conscientiously  bound  by  what  they  know  to  be  the  in- 
tendment of  the  rubric,  cannot  but  refuse  to  officiate,  with 
the  omission  of  the  ante-communion,  however  sanctioned 
by  the  custom  of  a  particular  place:  and  although  the 
stated  minister  should  condescend  to  tolerate  a  practice 
different  from  his  own,  yet  the  diversity  cannot  but  have  a 
disparaging  tendency  in  the  estimation  of  a  congregation. 

Secondly.  The  conscience  of  every  bishop  is  occasionally 
implicated  in  the  subject.  A  deacon  offers  for  the  priest- 
hood, after  administering  habitually  in  violation  of  what  the 
other  believes  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 'rubric;  while  the 
one  is  to  require,  and  the  other  is  to  promise  conformity  to 
it.  On  a  presbyter's  contemplating  removal  to  another 
diocese,  he  finds  it  important  to  his  character  and  to  his 
prospects,  that  there  should  be  certified  conformity  to  the 
institutions  of  the  Church;  of  the  contrary  to  which  the 
bishop  has  been  credibly  informed.  It  will  be  said,  that  in 
each  of  the  su[)posed  cases,  the  party  may  have  conducted 
himself  conscientiously,  and  agreeably  to  hAs  own  interpreta- 
tion of  the  rubric.  Let  this  be  supposed  the  case;  but  let 
it  also  be  granted,  that  the  bishop,  in  taking  his  line  of  con- 
duct, has  also  a  conscience  to  be  satistied,  and  a  riglit  of 
interpretation  to  be  sustained.  At  the  same  tin)e  let  it  be 
remembered,  that  of  tliose  who  reject  tiie  constant  use  of 
the  service  in  question,  none  plead  conscientious  scruples 
for  their  conduct. 

If  there  be  any  case  in  which  this  matter,  more  than  in 
any  otb.er,  may  press  on  the  conscience  of  a  bisl>o[»,  it  must 
be,  when  he  is  called  to  the  duty  of  consecrating  to  the 
Episcopacy ;  and  when  the  bishop  elect,  before  a  step  is 
taken  in  the  act  of  consecration,  is  to  take  on  his  lips  the 
solemn  form  of  words  prej)ared  for  him;  with  the  under- 
standing in  the  minds  of  his  consecrators,  that  ho  intends  a 
deviation  from  the  order  of  the  Church,  on  so  extensive  a 
branch  of  her  services  as  that  in  question. 

Thirdly.  The  misinterpretation  is  an  assumption  of  tht; 
whole  legislative  authority  of  the  Church;  leading,  m  it* 


Appendix — No,  34.  S83 

fonsscqii-onces,  to  the  setting!;  aside  of  a  very  great,  proportion 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  In  our  fornier  conuinini- 
cntion  we  admittec!,  and  now  admit,  that  the  favourers  of 
the  innovation  are  in  the  habit  of  nsin*^  the  ante-communion 
service  on  all  occasions  of  the  administration  of  the  com- 
munion. We  remarked,  that  their  doing  so  was  in  contra- 
riety to  tlioir  construction;  and  that  if  others,  under  the 
shelter  of  it,  should  dismiss  the  ante-communion  service 
whenever  a  sermon  is  to  follow  ;  and  with  it,  the  collects, 
the  epistles,  and  the  gospels  ;  no  fault,  on  the  ground  taken, 
can  be  charged.  In  the  case  supposed,  why  should  there 
be  retained  such  useless  lumber  in  the  liturgy?  This  was 
substantially  set  forth  in  our  former  comnuinication  ;  and 
is  now  repeated,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  matter 
in  the  light  of  the  exercise  of  the  whole  legislative  authority 
of  the  Church  ;  and  that,  in  the  great  extent  to  which  it  has 
been  referred  to. 

To  prepare  for  a  further  elucidation  of  the  part  of  the 
canon  in  question,  we  here  transcribe  it — "  Upon  the  Sun- 
days ami  other  holy  days  (if  there  be  no  sermon  or  commu- 
nion) shall  1)0  said  all  that  is  appointed  at  the  communion, 
unto  the  end  of  the  gospel,  concluding  with  the  Blessing." 

The  question  turns  on  the  sense  of  the  words  "  sermon 
or,"  and  their  dependence  on  the  preceding  preposition  "  if." 
The  dictionaries  explain  this  word,  by  the  synonymous 
terms — "  suppose  that"  and  "  allow  that,"  and  etymologists 
deduce  it  from  the  word  "  give;"  which  must  be  its  sense 
in  the  English  rubric;  since  otherwise  whenever  the  com- 
munion is  to  be  administered,  the  ante-communion  service 
is  to  be  dispensed  with  ;  an  absurdity  which  none  will  ad- 
vocate. 

The  sense  of  this  rubric  may  be  perceived  the  more 
clearly,  by  remarking  its  connexion  with  that  immediately 
before  the  sentences.  The  latter  says — "  then  shall  fol- 
low the  sermon;"  after  which,  according  to  the  same  ru- 
bric, the  minister  is  to  repair  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  to 
begin  the  offertory.  •  The  rubric  now  in  question  does  not 
dispense  with  any  thing  before  enjoined,  but  supposes  cases 
of  exception,  in  regard  to  what  is  to  follow,  saying — "  if 
there  be  no  sermon  or  communion,"  &c. 

In  consideration  of  the  premises,  the  House  of  Bishops 
respectfully  propose  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties the  following  canon  : — 


384  Appendix — No.  35. 

A  Canon  explanatory  of  the  first  Part  of  the  Rubric  at  the 
end  of  the  Contmanion  Service. 

"  Wlicrca.'^,  in  the  first  part  of  the  last  rubric  in  '  The 
Order  for  the  Administration  of  the  Communion,'  tlie  allow- 
ing of  the  officiating  nvinijjter,  there  being  no  sermon  or 
eommimion,  to  proceed  to  the  lllessing ;  was  owing  to  the 
circumstauce,  that  without  such  a  proviso,  his  doing  so 
would  not  have  been  agreeable  to  the  rubric:  it  shall  be 
the  tiiity  of  every  minister  of  this  Church,  in  the  celebration 
of  divine  service  on  Sundays  and  other  holy  days,  to  recite 
that  part  of  the  service  which  commoidy  has  the  name  of 
the  ante-coinmunion  service." 


No.  35.    Page  257. 

Thou'^hls  on  the  Proposal  of  Alterations  in  the  Book  of  Psalms- 
in  Metre,  and  in  the  Hymns,  now  before  a  Committee  of  the 
General  Convention :  By  a  Member  of  the  Committee. 

The  subject  shall  be  considered  as  it  respects-^lst.  The 
Book  of  Psalms  in  metre — 2dly.  The  Hymns  already  adopt- 
ed ;  and — -idly.  The  adoption  of  others. 

Let  the  Book  of  Psalms  in  metre,  as  translated  by  Tate  and 
Brady,  be  continued  entire,  until  another  entire  translation 
shall  be  ))resented,  and  thought  preferable  after  deliberate 
examination  by  those  the  best  qualified  to  judge  of  the  work, 
as  to  the  integrity  of  it,  and  as  to  its  poetic  merit.  It  is  not 
understood  that  any  such  translation  is  in  readiness;  and, 
as  to  altering  of  the  book  in  particular  passages,  it  is  a 
course  which,  once  begun  on,  is  likely  to  be  continued,  by  a 
succession  of  changes  without  end.  Probably  the  book  will 
never  be  the  same,  longer  than  from  one  General  Conven- 
tion to  another.* 

Some  are  for  printing  only  select  passages  of  the  book ; 
and  the  reason  given  is,  that  the  greater  part  of  it  is  never 
used.  It  is  here  predicted,  that  let  the  selection  be  made 
with  ever  so  much  care,  there  will  be  complaints  of  the 
omission  of  passages,  which,  it  will  be  said,  ought  to  have 

*  These  remarks  were  not  designed  to  diecountonance  a  measure  subsequently 
adopted  by  the  assembled  members  of  the  conuuittce — the  appointing  af  a  sub- 
committee to  report  to  an  adjourned  meeting — any  deviations  which  tliere  may  be 
from  the  most  coircct  copies,  aud  any  mia-trauslatious  of  tlie  orisiua!. 


Appendix — No.  35.  385' 

fjcen  retained  ;  anJ  of  the  retainiiii;  of  others,  wliich,  it  wil' 
also  he  said,  might  have  been  well  .spared.  This  was  suffi- 
ciently experienced  in  the  reception  of  what  was  called  the 
Pro])osed  Book.  Where  fastidiousness  of  criticism  niay 
,^ro\v  out  of  mere  difference  of  taste,  why  not  leave  every 
man  to  his  own  ? 

But,  say  they,  it  is  an  unnecessary  swelling  of  the  volume. 
For  this,  there  is  an  easy  remedy.  The  metre  psahns  are 
no  part  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ;  and  no  law  of  the 
Church  will  bo  violated,  if  there  should  be  editions  with 
such  selections  as  the  favourers  of  the  works  may  approve 
of;  who  would  have  none  to  please  but  theniselvcs.  Tht) 
license  is  allowable  in  reference  to  the  hymns  also. 

Let  the  hymns  already  adopted  be  retained;  because 
there  can  be  no  material  use  in  the  contrary,  and  because  it 
would  counteract  the  tendency  to  perpetual  change.  Be  it, 
that  here  and  there  we  iind  a  line  or  two  not  defensible. 
Let  these  be  altered  in  future  editions.  The  alterations 
would  be  slight,  and  not  materially  affect  the  use  of  the  j)re- 
sent  books.  In  giving  numbers  to  the  new  hymns,  there 
should  be  a  continuation  of  those  of  the  old. 

In  favour  of  new  hymns  it  is  |)leadcd,  that  tiiere  are  some 
occasions  not  specially  provided  for.  Be  it  so :  and  let  a 
few  hymns  be  chosen  for  those  occasions.  The  necessity 
for  any  more  may  be  doubted  of;  considering  that  for  the 
usual  subjects  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  and  for  the  ex- 
])ression  of  penitence,  and  for  the  impressing  of  a  great 
variety  of  salutary  instruction,  we  have  an  abundant  sujiply 
in  the  Book  of  Psalms.  Yet,  if  there  should  be  proposed 
additional  hymns,  not  too  many,  and  not  only  correct  in  sen- 
timent, but  excelling  in  poetic  merit,  no  objection  is  here 
made- 
Most  decidedly  is  there  objected  to  the  taste  of  some,  dis- 
posing them  to  wish  for  hymns,  in  which  the  same  subjects 
are  again  and  again  repeated  in  varied  phraseology.  It  is 
denied  that  this  contributes  to  devotion ;  and  the  denial  is 
grounded  on  the  well  known  property  of  the  human  cha- 
racter, that  when  religious  sensibilities  have  been  often  ex- 
cited by  certain  words,  the  repetition  of  them  is  more  likely 
to  produce  the  like  excitement  than  other  words  compre- 
hending the  same  sentiments.  The  principle  is  applicable 
to  other  subjects,  and  accounts  for  the  long  duration  of  the 
effects  of  popular  ballads — especially  the  wonder-working 
one  of  the  Swiss. 

Whether  the  inviting'  feelincj  be  religion  or  patriotism, 

49 


^8G  Appendix — No.  •3t>. 

makes  nothing  as  to  tlie  question  of  effect.  Let  it  he  sup- 
])Osed  that  sonic  poet  shniiU!  compose  a  song,  expressing  the 
sentiments  in  "Rule  Britannia, "  «fcc.  and  eqnai  to  that  song 
in  versification.  Can  it  he  supposed,  that  the  new  song,  on 
any  occasion  interesting  the  puhlic  mind,  woukl  have  an 
equal  ellect  with  the  accnstomed  words  ?  ft  is  not  to  be 
imagined.  Ttliicli  less  wouhl  this  be  hkcly  to  happen,  if"  the 
new  song  should  have  a  new  tune  tacked  to  it. 

Divine  wisdom  has  accommodated  to  this  prof)erty  of  hu- 
man nature  :  of  which  there  is  an  interesting  instance  in 
Deuteronomy  xxvi.  5 — "  A  Syrian  was  my  father,"  &c. 
This  was  a  form  to  be  repeated  without  variation  from  year 
to  year;  no  regard  being  liad  to  the  taste  of  those  whose 
ears  have  a  relish  for  great  variety  in  words.  So,  when  the 
ark  "  set  forward,"  it  was  always  with  the  invocation — 
"  Rise  up.  Lord,  and  let  thine  enemies  be  scattered,  and  let 
them  that  hato  thee,  flee  before  thee  :"  and  when  it  rested, 
it  was  with — "  Return,  O  Lord,  unto  the  many  thousands  of 
Israel."  \x\  each  case,  the  same  words  were  repeated 
always:  and  in  after  times,  when  the  services  of  the  temple 
were  arranged,  they  were  invariable. 

In  order  to  perceive  the  ground  of  this  procedure  in  hu- 
man nature,  we  should  distinguish  between  what  is  gratify- 
ing to  the  intellect,  or  to  the  imagination,  or  to  the  ear,  and 
that  which  is  an  excitement  of  devotion,  or  of  sensibiHty  in 
any  other  departinent.  The  former  kind  of  gratification 
requires  variety  ;  but  as  producing  the  latter,  sameness  is 
more  effective. 

It  is  no  objection,  that  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  we  find  the 
same  sentiments  in  a  variety  of  diction.  Those  composi- 
tions were  such,  as  present  state  of  mind,  and  present  cir- 
cumstances of  life,  suggested  to  the  mind  of  the  sacred  poet. 
The  fact  has  no  bearing  on  periodical  returns  of  devotion, 
whether  public  or  private. 

There  seems  no  reason  for  difference  in  this  respect,  be- 
tween  psalmody  and  prosaic  j)rayer.  Under  the  latter  head, 
we  have  the  stated  form  of  the  Lord's  Prayer;  and  there  are 
extant  other  forms,  attended  on  by  him  and  by  his  apostlesr 
in  the  synagogues.  Our  Church  has  adojjted  the  principle  in 
this  department.  We  know,  that  some  would  make  inroads 
on  this  arrangement.  But  what  is  the  consequence.''  It 
is,  that  in  their  extemporaneous  prayers,  they  insensibly 
assume  the  character  of  harangues:  on  the  principle  above 
stated,  that  variety  has  a  more  natural  alliance  with  exer- 
cises of  this  sort,  than  with  the  excitement  of  devotion- 


Appendix — No.  36.  387 

Accordingly,  the  design  of  this  coniiiiLuiiciition  is  to  ex- 
•{)iess  disinclination  to  variety,  any  further,  than  it  is  called 
lor  by  variety  of  subject  and  of  state  of  itiiiid. 


No.  36.    Page  268. 

Comtilution.  of  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
of  the  Frolestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  as  established  in  1820,  and  amended  in  1823, 
1829,  1832,  and  1835. 

Article  I.  This  institution  shall  he  denominated  "  the 
Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Churcli  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

Art.  II.  The  society  shall  be  considered  as  compre- 
hending all  persons  who  are  members  of  this  Church. 

Art.  III.  At  every  triennial  meeting  of  the  General 
Convention,  which  is  the  constituted  representative  body  of 
the  whole  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these  United 
States,  there  shall  be  appointed,  by  a  concurrent  vote,  on 
nomination  by  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses,  a  board 
of  thirty  members,  who,  together  with  the  bishops  of  this 
Church,  and  such  persons  as  became  patrons  of  the  society 
before  the  meeting  of  the  General  Convention  in  the  year 
1829,  shall  be  called  the  "  lioard  of  Missions  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 
The  said  committee  of  nomination  shall  consist  of  three 
bishops,  to  be  elected  by  ballot  in  the  House  of  Bishops, 
and  three  presbyters  and  three  laymen,  to  be  elected  by 
ballot  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 

Art.  lY.  To  the  Board  of  Missions  shall  be  intrusted 
tiie  supervision  of  the  general  missionary  operations  of  the 
Church,  with  power  to  establish  missionary  stations,  appoint 
missionaries,  make  appropriations  of  money,  regulate  the 
conducting  of  missions,  fii!  any  vacancies  in  their  number 
which  may  occur,  and  also  to  enact  all  by-laws  which  they 
may  deem  necessary  for  their  own  government  and  the 
government  of  their  committees. 

Art.  V.  The  presiding  bishop  of  the  Church  shall  be 
the  president  of  the  board  ;  and  in  his  absence,  the  senior 
bishop  proscut  shall  preside  ;  in  the  absence  of  all  the  bi- 
shops, the  board  shall  elect  a  president  pro  tempore. 


338  Appendix — Nu.  36. 

Art.  VI.  The  Board  of  3Iissions  shall  hold  its  fiis^ 
meeting  on  the  call  of  the  presiding  bishop,  and  shall  meejt 
annually  thereafter  at  such  time  and  place  as  may  have 
been  appointed  at  the  previous  annual  meeting ;  and  also 
on  the  second  day  of  the  meeting  of  the  General  Convention, 
at  the  place  of  its  meeting.  They  shall  publish  an  annual 
report  of  their  proceedings  for  the  information  of  the  society, 
and  present  a  triennial  report  to  each  stated  General  Con- 
vention. 

At  all  meetings  of  the  board,  ten  members  shall  form  u 
quorum. 

Special  meetings  of  the  board  may  be  called  as  shall  be 
provided  in  their  own  by-laws. 

Art.  VII.  The  board,  as  soon  as  may  be  after  it  has 
been  constituted,  shall  proceed  to  appoint  eight  persons, 
four  of  whom  shall  be  clergymen,  and  four  of  whom  shall 
l)e  laymen,  who,  together  with  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  in 
which  the  committee  is  located,  shall  be  a  Committee  for 
Domestic  Missions  ;  and  eight  persons,  four  of  whom  shall 
be  clergymen,  and  four  of  whom  shall  be  laymen,  who, 
together  with  the  bishoj)  of  the  diocese  in  which  the  com- 
mittee is  located,  shall  be  a  Committee  for  Foreign  Mis- 
sions ;  all  of  whom  shall  he  ex  officio  members  of  the  Board 
of  Missions. 

Any  bishop  or  bishops  })resent  at  the  place  of  meeting, 
shall  have  a  right  ex  officio  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the 
committee,  as  members  of  the  same. 

Vacancies  occurring  in  either  of  the  committees,  during 
the  recess  of  the  board,  may  be  filled  by  the  committees 
respectively,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  board  at  its 
next  meeting. 

Art.  VIII.  To  the  committees  of  the  board  thus  con- 
stituted, shall  be  referred,  in  their  respective  departments, 
during  the  recess  of  the  board,  the  whole  administration  of 
the  general  missionary  work  of  the  Church,  subject  to  the 
regulations  of  the  board.  Each  committee  shall  make  a 
report  of  their  proceedings  to  the  Board  of  Missions  at  every 
meeting  of  the  board. 

Art.  IX.  The  Board  of  3Iissions  shall  appoint  for  each 
committee  a  secretary  and  general  agent,  with  a  suitable 
salary,  who  shall  l)e  the  executive  oflicer  of  the  committee, 
to  collect  information,  to  conduct  its  correspondence,  to 
devise  and  recommend  jdans  of  operation,  and,  in  general, 
to  execute  all  the  purposes  of  the  board,  in  his  j)roper 
sphere,  submitting  ull  his  measures,  bclbre  their  adoption, 


Appendix — No.  3<).  389 

4o  the    committee    for  whom  he    is  appointed,    for   their 
approval. 

Each  committee  shall  also  appoint  a  treasurer.  And  tlic 
board  shall  designate  which  of  the  treasurers  so  appointed 
shall  be  authorized  to  receive  all  moneys  not  specifically  ap- 
propriated, which  moneys  shall  be  at  the  disposal  of  the 
board. 

The  secretaries  and  treasurers  shall  he  ex  officio  members 
of  their  respective  committees,  and  of  the  board. 

Local  and  subordinate  agents  and  officers  may,  when 
necessary,  be  appointed  by  each  committee. 

Afit.  X.  For  the  guidance  of  the  committee  it  is  de- 
clared, that  the  missionary  field  is  always  to  be  regarded 
as  one,  the  world — the  terms,  domestic  and  foreign,  being 
understood  as  terms  of  locality,  adopted  for  convenience. 
Jjomestic  missions  are  those  which  are  established  irithin, 
m\A  foreign  missions  are  those  which  are  establislied  ivithoid, 
the  territory  of  the  United  States. 

Art.  XI.  No  clergyman  shall  be  appointed  a  missionary 
by  the  board,  or  by  either  of  the  committees,  without  the 
recommendation  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority  to  whose 
diocese  he  belongs;  nor  shall  any  missionary  be  sent  to 
officiate  in  any  diocese,  without  the  consent  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical authority  of  the  same. 

Art.  XII.  The  Board  of  Missions  provided  for  in  the 
third  article  of  this  Constitution,  shall  in  all  cases  be  con- 
tinued until  a  new  board  is  elected. 

Art.  XIll.  It  is  recommended  to  every  member  of  this 
society  to  pray  to  Almighty  God  for  his  blessing  upon  its 
designs,  under  the  full  conviction  that  unless  He  direct  us 
in  all  our  doings  with  his  most  gracious  favour,  and  further 
us  with  his  continual  help,  we  cannot  reasonably  hope  to 
procure  suitable  persons  to  act  as  missionaries,  or  expect 
that  their  endeavours  will  be  successful. 


No.  37.    Page  269. 

It  is  expected  that  there  will  be  brought  before  the  en- 
suing General  Convention,  the  question  agitated  in  New- 
York  concerning  the  proposed  division  of  that  diocese.  My 
present  opinion,  as  to  the  principles  which  should  govern 
in  that  and  in  every  similar  case,  is  as  follows: — 

1  am  in  favour  of  the  division  of  a  diocese,  whenever  it  is 


3&0  Appendix— No.  37. 

rendered  expedient  hy  extent  of  territory,  and  by  Episco- 
palian population  in  point  of  number. 

Where  these  circunistanccs  combine,  and  the  measure  is 
consequently  determined  on,  there  is  suggested  the  inquiry, 
bliall  the  additional  bishop  be  an  assistant,  or  a  suftVagan, 
or  the  diocesan  of  a  new  diocese .'' 

If  the  demand  be  occasioned  by  the  old  age,  or  by  the 
infirmities  of  tlie  present  bisiiop,  the  new  one  may  be  the 
most  properly  his  assistant.  Or,  if  the  former  should  choose 
to  continue  Iiis  labours  over  the  whole,  although  with  the 
aid  furnished,  there  is  no  principle  in  opposition.  But  much 
may  dejiend  on  circumstances  of  expediency. 

A  sulfragan  bisiiop  has  under  his  charge  a  portion  of  the 
diocese.  He  retains  it  in  the  event  of  the  decease  of  the 
diocesan,  whom  he  does  not  succeed.  Such  an  arrangement 
may  suit  local  preferences  prevailing  in  Europe,  but  would 
be  contrary  to  the  habits  of  thinking  generally  prevailing  in 
America.  Among  other  resulting  evils,  it  would  jirobably 
bappen,  that  the  suffragan's  taking  of  his  place  would  be 
offensive  to  the  district  left,  or  to  that  to  which  he  is  to  be 
transferred.  If,  to  avoid  this,  he  should  be  continued  in 
the  place  of  his  former  residence,  there  may  be  chosen  to 
the  diocesan  Episcopacy  a  clergyman  considerably  junior 
to  him,  but  made  his  superior  by  that  measure.  This 
would  probably  be  painful  to  his  feelings,  and  to  tliose  of  a 
poiiulation  wlio  had  been  under  his  n^nistry  through  a  long 
tiact  of  time.  There  would  be,  in  their  estimation,  a  sort 
of  patriotism  in  resisting  the  degradation  of  the  district  in 
which  they  would  be  citizens. 

The  result  of  my  speculations  is  tlieopiuion,that  in  the  case 
of  a  call  for  more  than  one  bishop,  in  an  extent  of  country 
now  constituting  a  diocese,  (lie  most  useful  j)lan  would  be  a 
division  of  it,  the  two  portions  to  be  as  independent  on  one 
another  as  are  now  the  Cliurches  of  any  two  states. 

The  question  occurs,  What  would  be  the  cfieca  of  this 
measure  on  our  general  organization?  In  answer,  it  may 
be  stated,  that  botii  of  the  bishops  of  the  two  contcmj)lated 
ilioceses  would  have  votes  in  the  General  Convention  ;  but 
that  there  would  be  required  of  it  a  legislative  act,  to  enable 
each  of  these  bodies  to  send  their  clerical  and  their  lay 
dej)uties. 

Some  may  object  to  this,  as  giving  to  the  Church  in  ji 
single  state,  an  increase  of  power  beyond  what  is  provided 
by  the  constitution,  on  other  points.  The  objection  would 
liuvc  weight,  if  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  were  ac- 


Appendix— No.  37.  3&I 

commodatetl  to  the  numbers  of  the  Episcopaliun  population 
in  the  several  parts  of  the  union.  When  the  const  it  iitioit 
was  fra!ne<l,  the  puhlic  mind  had  not  yet  raised  itseif  above 
that  excessive  attachment  to  the  pectiHariries  of  thediiierent 
states,  which  is  in  the  way  of  consistent  adherencfi  in  prac- 
tice, to  the  principle  contended  for  in  theory,  the  founding 
of  law  on  pu[)lic  will. 

If  there  should  ever  happen  a  dissolution  of  the  unity  of 
our  American  Church,  the  deplorable  event  wiil  probably 
be  occasioned  by  the  said  inequality.  There  may  occur 
questions  liaving  important  bearinos  on  our  doctrine,  or  on 
our  discipline,  or  on  our  worshij).  Measures  may  be  adopted 
by  a  majority,  according'  to  tiie  constitution,  but  dissented 
from  by  an  acknowledged  majority  of  our  Episcopal  popu- 
lation. It  can  hardly  be  supposed,  and  is  contrary  to  our 
observation  of  human  nature,  that  the  measures  would  be 
submitted  to. 

Whether  the  separation  would  be  prevented  by  the  fairer 
representation  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  cannot  be  foreseen. 
But  here  is  a  good  reason  not  to  object  to  the  increase  of 
their  number,  by  the  division  of  a  diocese,  or  to  an  analogous 
provision  for  representation  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies. 

Postscript. 

Since  the  penning  of  the  opinion,  it  has  been  suggested  to 
me,  in  favour  of  suffragan  Episcopacy,  that  it  would  lessen 
the  disadvantage  likely  to  result  from  having  an  inconvenient 
number  of  members  of  the  House  of  Bishops;  which,  it  is 
said,  may  be  prevented,  in  a  degree  at  least,  by  excluding 
Suffragans  from  that  house,  with  the  permission  of  their 
being  chosen  as  clerical  representatives  for  the  other. 

First.  It  would  make  but  little  diiference,  as  we  may 
suppose  that  the  larger  dioceses  only  wiil  be  divided. 

Secondly.  The  permitting  of  suffragans  in  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Dejiuties,  seems  to  militate  with  the  prin- 
ciple, that  legislation  should  be  exclusively  the  act  of  all  the 
orders  of  men  whom  it  concerns. 

Thirdly.  Where  large  dioceses  become  divided,  each  de- 
partment having  a  larger  Episcopal  pojjulation  than  several 
of  the  entire  dioceses,  it  is  unfair  that  the  bishops  of  the 
latter  should  be  of  a  higher  grade  than  that  of  the  former, 
especially  when  the  incongruity  would  be  aggravated  by 
^reat  disparity  of  years. 


^02  Appendix— No.  37. 

Fourthly.  The  time  will  probably  come,  but  is  not  likely 
to  be  soon,  when  a  reproscutalion  to  each  house  will  be  con- 
stituted by  deputation  from  sundry  districts,  into  which  the 
very  extensive  country  occupied  by  us  will  become  ecclesi- 
astically divided.  This  may  dictate  another  profitable  ar- 
rani;emcnt — that  of  an  ecclesiastical  assembly  in  each  dis- 
trict, in  each  of  the  two  years  intervening-  between  every 
two  General  Conventions.  The  assemblies  now  proposed 
need  not  be  limited  to  the  choice  of  representatives,  and 
may  profitably  receive  appeals  from  diocesan  determinations, 
in  matters  of  discipline.  With  legislation  they  should  have 
no  concern.  It  maybe  suggested,  that  there  might  be  pro- 
vided an  aj)pcal  from  the  diocesan  Episcopacy  to  the  House 
of  Bishops  :  but  this  would  cause  inconvenient  delay.  An- 
other expedient  might  be,  the  application  of  the  convention 
concerned,  or  of  its  standing  committee,  to  three  conveni- 
ently situated  bishops  for  the  hearing  of  the  appeal.  But  a 
better  should  be  in  prospect,  in  the  contemplated  division 
into  districts^. 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  in  the  minds  of  many,  there  is 
the  supposition,  that  a  bishop  should  always  be  engaged  in 
visitations.     To  this  there  are  several  objections. 

1.  It  is  contrary  to  the  usage  of  all  ages,  except  in  regard 
to  bishops  strictly  missionary,  and  without  relation  to  par- 
ticular dioceses. 

2.  A  bishop  will  generally  have  a  family,  to  whom  a  rea- 
sonable portion  of  his  time  will  be  as  much  due,  as  are  any 
of  his  services  to  the  Church. 

3.  The  scheme  is  inconsistent  with  the  expectation  of  a 
learned  Episcopacy. 

4.  It  will  be  oppressive  on  a  bishop  advanced  in  years, 
or  infirm. 

The  author  is  sensible  of  what  would  be  an  indecorum, 
in  his  aft'ecting  to  influence  ecclesiastical  measures,  after  the 
time,  which  cannot  be  distant,  of  his  retirement  from  this 
earthly  scene.  But  if  on  any  subject  there  may  seem  pos- 
sible use  in  sentiments  entertained  by  him,  he  does  not  per- 
ceive any  reason  for  the  withholding  of  them  ;  although 
tliere  is  much  reason  for  the  delivery  of  them  with  diffi- 
dence ;  and  with  the  being  aware,  that  unexpected  motives 
of  conduct  may  occur. 

On  a  review  of  this  document,  the  author  judges  it  not 
irrelevant,  to  record  some  sentiments  long  entertained  by 
him,  as  to  arrangements  which  should  be  kept  in  prospect, 
to  be  carried  into  eftect  when  circumstances  may  permit. 


Appendix — No,  37.  311'? 

liCl  there  l>c  iti  a  Jiocesc,  and  in  some  city  or  town  as 
rcMtta!  as  may  be,  a  church  of  which  the  bishoj)  is  to  be  the 
parochial  pastor,  and  in  which  he  is  to  preach  liabitually, 
when  not  en^^a^ed  in  visitations.  In  such  a  church,  the 
diocesan  convention  will  occupy  the  standiu^^  and  uii!  per- 
form the  duties  of  rui  ordinary  vestry.  This  u  ill  be  as  near 
to  primitive  practice,  and  to  that  of  the  Church  of  Euirland, 
as  is  consistent  with  the  circumstances  of  our  Churcfi.  »Such 
a  pastor  shouhi  have  an  assistant  minister,  to  be  provided 
for  out  of  the  pew-money.  Tiie  maintenance  of  the  bishop 
should  be  from  an  F,()iscopal  fund. 


50 


STAND  A  R  D    WORKS, 


FOR    SALE    BY 


SWORDS,    S  T  A  N  F  O  R  D,    A  N  D    C  O. 


Bishop  Ilobarl's  edition  of  Mant  and  D'Oyly's  Bible,  in  2,  3,  or 
4  vols,  quarto. 

Postluiaious  Works  of  the  late  Right  Rnv.  John  Henry  Ilobart. 
D.  D.,  3  vols.  6vo. 

Sermons  on  the  Principal  Events  and  Trnths  of  Redeiuptiori,  by 
tlie  Ri?:ht  Rev.  John  Henry  Hobart,  D.  D.,  '2  vols.  bvo. 

Sermons  by  the  late  Right  Rev.  Benjamin  Moore,  D.  D.,  of  Ni!\v- 
York,  2  vols.  8vo. 

Sermons  by  the  late  Right  Rev.  John  S.  Ravetiscrot>,  D.  D.,  of 
North-C/arolina,  'i  vols.  tevo. 

Sermons  by  the  late  Right  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D.,  ol'  (.Con- 
necticut and  Rhode-Island,  2  vols.  Svo. 

Sermons  by  the  late  Rigiit  Rev.  Theodore  Dehon,  D.  D.,  of  Soutli- 
Carolina,  2  vols.  Svo. 

An  Essay  on  the  Life  and  Character  of  the  late  Right  Rev.  Theo- 
dore Dehon,  D.  D.,  by  the  Rev.  C.  E.  Gadsden,  D.  D. 

The  Reniains  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Henry  Wharton,  D.  D.,  \vit!i  a 
Memoir  of  his  Life,  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Doane,  2  vols. 

Bishop  White's  Comparative  View  of  the  Controversy  between  the 
Calvinists  and  Armenians,  2  vols.  Svo. 

Bishop  Willie's  Lectures  on  the  Catechism  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  Svo. 

Commentaries  suited  to  Occasions  <jf  Ordination,  by  the  Right  Rev. 
Bishop  White. 

A  Treatise  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  by  the  Rev.  Isaac  Barrow. 
D.  D.,  Svo. 

Waddington's  History  of  the  Church,  from  the  earliest  Ages  to  the 
Reformation,  Svo. 

Works  of  the  Rev.  John  Newton,  with  a  ^lemoir  of  his  lAlh,  2 
vols.  Svo. 

Discourses  and  Dissertations  on  the  Doctrines  of  Atonement  and 
Sacrifice,  by  Archbishop  Magee,  2  vols.  Svo. 

Mllner's  History  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  a  new  edition,  2  vols.  Svo. 

Sermons  by  Bishop  Horsley,the  only  complete  edition,  3  vols.  Svo. 

Macknight's  Translation  of  the  Epistles,  a  new  and  beautiluledi- 
tion,  SvG. 

Home's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, a  new  edition,  greatly  enlarged  by  the  author. 

Cruden's  Concofdance,  a  new  edition,  revised  and  corrected. 

Works  of  the  Rev.  William  Jay,  of  Bath,  3  vols.  Svo. 

Life  and  Sermons  of  the  late  Rev.  G.  T.  Bedell,  D.  D.,  2  vols.  Svo, 


Sermons  by  the  late  Rev.  C.  K.  Duffie,  '-3  vols.  6vo. 

Whole  Works  of  Bickorsteth,  8vo. 

Whole  Works  of  Hannah  More,  7  vols.  8vo.- 

IVayers  adapted  to  various  Occasions  of  Social  Worship,  by  the 
Iliqlit  llev.  Alexander  V.  Grisv/old,  D.  D. 

Tlie  IJfc  and  Writings  of  the  Rev.  George  Herbert. 

Iveblc's  Christian  Year,  edited  by  Bishof)  Doane. 

Morning  Exercises  for  every  Day  in  the  Year,  by  the  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Jay. 

Evening  Exercises  for  every  Day  in  tlie  Year,  by  the  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Jay. 

The  Pastor's  Testimony,  by  the  Rev.  John  A.  Clark.  Fourth 
edition,  revised  and  corrected  by  the  author. 

Essays  on  Happiness,  Christian  Piety,  &;c.  by  the  Rev.  John 
M'Laurin,  wiiii  aa  Introduction,  containing  some  Notice  of  his 
Life  and  Character,  by  the  Rev.  Herman  Hooker,  M.  A. 

Goode's  Better  Covenant,  edited  by  the  Rev.  H.  Hooker,  M.  A. 

TIio  Churchman's  IManual,  an  Exposition  of  the  Doctrines,  Mi- 
nistry, and  Worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churcli,  by 
the  Rev.  Benjamin  Dorr,  A.  M. 

ij;irly  Years  of  the  late  Bishop  Hobart,  by  the  Rev.  John  M'Vickar. 

Professional  Years  of  the  late  Bishop  Hobart,  by  the  Rev.  John 
M'Vickar. 

A  Practical  View  of  Christianit}-,  by  William  Wilbcrforce,  Esq. 

The  Primitive  Creed  examined  and  explained,  by  the  Right  Rev. 
John  H.  Hopkins,  D.  D. 

Tyerman  and  15ennett's  Journal  of  Voyages  through  the  South  Sea 
Islands,  Cliina,  India,  «fcc.,  H  vols.  l'2nio. 

Evidences  of  Christianity,  by  the  Right  Rev.  C.  P.  M'llvaine,  D.  D. 

Evidences  of  the  Prophecies,  by  the  Rev.  A.  Keith. 

The  Signs  of  the  Times,  by  the  Rev.  A.  Keith,  2  vols. 

Sumner's  Exposition  of  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke,  2  vols. 

Christian  Ethics;  or  Moral  Philosophy  on  the  Principles  of  Divine 
Revelation,  by  Ralph  Wardlaw,  D.  D. 

Jeremy  Taylor's  Holy  Living  and  Dying. 

Sermons  upon  the  Ministry,  Worship,  and  Doctrines  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Ciuirch,  by  G.  T.  Chapman,  D.  D. 

The  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  by  G.  S.  Faber,  B.  D. 

The  Difficulties  of  Infidelity,  by  G.  S.  Faber,  B.  D. 

Selections  from  the  Writings  of  Fenelon,  with  a  IMemoir  of  his  Life. 

S Prague's  Letters  to  a  Daughter. 

Natural  History  of  Enthusiasm. 

Spiritual  Despotism,  by  the  Author  of  "  Natural  History  of  En- 
thusiasm." 

Select  Sermons,  by  Hugh  Latimer. 

Wilks's  Christian  Essays. 

Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Correspondence  of  the  Rev.  Christian 
Frederick  Swartz,  by  Hugh  Pearson,  D.  D. 

Lectures  on  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  by  S.  H.  Tyng,  D.  D. 


!«•»     UMII*-'         -'- 


THE 


OF  THE 


EPISCOPAI.  CHURCHES  I 


IN  THE 


UNITED  STATES 


CODTSISERSD. 


i'o  naake  new  ftiticles  of  faith  and  doctrine,  no  man  thinketh  it  lawful;  new 
laws  of  Kovemment,  what  commonwealth  or  church  is  there  which  maketh  net 
!)t  one  time  or  another  ?  HOOKER. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

PHINTED  BT  DAVID  C.  CLAXPOOLX 

1783. 

REPRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  STAVELV 

1827. 


/ 


^/ 


mHHnifSimtlVntfm^t**- 


JJJ  ,-  Ml.    ..."   ' ''  '^"",.'.'.1"""   ^ 


PREFACE. 

It  may  be  presumed,  that  the  members  of 
the  Episcopal  Churches,  some  from  conviction, 
and  others  from  the  influence  of  ancient  habits, 
entertain  a  preference  for  their  own  commu- 
nion ;  and  that  accordingly  they  are  not  a  little 
anxious,  to  see  some  speedy  and  decisive  mea- 
sures adopted  for  its  continuance.  The  author 
believes,  therefore,  that  his  undertaking  needs 
no  apology  to  the  public :  and  that  those  for 
whom  it  is  designed  will  give  him  credit  for  his 
good  intentions. 

Nothing  is  farther  from  his  wishes,  than  the 
reviving  of  such  controversies  as  have  been 
found  destructive  of  good  neighbourhood  and 
the  christian  temper ;  especially  as  he  con- 
ceives them  to  be  unconnected  with  the  pecu- 
liar situation  of  the  churches  in  question.  He 
has,  for  this  reason,  avoided  the  discussion  of 
subjects,  on  which  Episcopalians  differ  from 
their  fellow  christians  ;  and  even  of  those,  con- 
cerning which  a  latitude  of  sentiment  has  pre- 
vailed among  themselves. 

He  thinks  his  design  is  subservient  to  the 
general  cause  of  religion  and  virtue  ;  for  a  nu- 
merous society,  losing  the  benefit  of  the  stated 
ordinances  within  itself,  cannot  but  severely 
feel  the  effect  of  such  a  change,  on  the  piety 
and  morals  of  its  members.  In  this  point  of  view, 
all   good   men  must  lament  that  cessation  of 


/r 


iV 


public  worship,  which  has  happened  to  many 
of  the  Episcopal  churches,  and  threatens  to  be- 
come universal. 

The  present  work  he  also  believes  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  civil  happiness  of  the  commu- 
nity. A  prejudice  has  prevailed  with  many,  that 
the  Episcopal  churches  cannot  otherwise  exist 
than  under  the  dominion  of  Great  Britain. 
A.  church  government  that  would  contain  the 
constituent  principles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, aid  yet  be  independent  of  foreign  juris- 
diction or  influence,  would  remove  that  anxiety 
which  at  present  hangs  heavy  on  the  minds  of 
many  sincere  persons. 

Such  is  the  natural  tendency  of  this  perform- 
ance. If  it  should  fail  of  effect  on  account  of 
the  insufficiency  of  the  author,  it  may  never- 
theless be  of  advantage,  by  drawing  to  the 
subject  the  attention  of  others,  better  qualified 
for  the  undertaking. 


I  I  wur   »Miii«i* 


THE,  CASE,  &C. 


CHAPTER  I 


2^     ff'Z^ipCz^ni^Cari^y^^ 


■f 


To  form  an  idea  of  tlie  situation  of  the  Episcopal* 
Churches  in  the  present  crisis,  we  must  observe  the  change 
their  religious  system  has  undergone  in  the  late  revolution. 
On  whatever  principles  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  may  be  supposed  to  rest ;  whether  merely  on  esta- 
blishments which  have  very  probable  appearances  of  being 
permanent,  or  on  withdrawing  the  protection  of  the  former 
sovereign,  or  (as  the  author  of  these  sheets  believes)  on  the 
inherent  right  of  the  community  to  resist  and  effectually  to 
exclude  unconstitutional  and  oppressive  claims,  there  re- 
suit  from  it  the  reciprocal  duties  of  protection  and  alle- 
giance, enforced  by  the  most  powerful  sanctions  of  natural 
and  revealed  religion.  :{ 

It  may  reasonably  be  presumed,  that,   in  general,  the  \\ 

members  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  are  friendly  to  the  < 

principles,  on  which  the  present  governments  were  form- 
ed ;  a  fact  particularly  obvious  in  the  southern  states, 
where  the  Episcopalians,  who  area  majority  of  the  citi- 
zens, have  engaged  and  persevered  in  the  war,  with  as 
much  ardour  and  constancy  as  their  neighb-urs.  Many 
even  of  those  whose  sentiments  were  at  first  unfavourable  V 

to  the  revolution,  now  wish  for  its  final  establishment,  as  a 
most  happy  event ;  some  from  an  earnest  desire  of  peace, 
and  others  from  the  undistinguished  oppressions  and  ra- 
vages of  the  British  armies.  Such  persons  accordingly 
acknowledge  allegiance,  and  pay  obedience  to  the  sove- 
reignty of  the  states. 

*  The  general  term  "  Episcopal"  is  usually  applied,  among 
us,  t'=  the  churches  professing  the  religious  principles  of  the 
ChWTch  cf  England.  It  is  thought  by  the  author  to  be  suffi- 
cientry  descriptive,  because  the  other  Episcopal  Churches  in 
'Vmericrj  .are  known  by  names  peculiar  to  themselves. 


// 


r 


"1 


inconsistent  with  the  duties  resulting  from  this  allegi- 
ance, would  be  their  subjection  to  any  spiritual  jurisdiction 
connected  with  the  temporal  authority  of  a  foreign  state. 
Such  a  dependence  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  civil  society,  and  therefore  cannot  be  required  by 
the  Scriptures ;  which,  being  accommodated  to  the  civil 
policy  of  the  world  at  large,  neither  interfered  with  the 
constitution  of  states  as  found  established  at  the  time  of 
their  promulgation,  nor  handed  down  to  succeeding  ages 
any  injunctions  of  such  a  tendency. 

To  apply  these  observations  to  the  case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  the  United  States.  They  have  been  hereto- 
fore subject  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  Bishop  of 
London.  This  authority  was  derived  under  a  commission 
from  the  crown  ;  which,  though  destitute  of  legal  opera- 
tion, found  a  general  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the 
churches  ;  being  exercised  no  farther  than  to  the  necessary 
purposes  of  ordaining  and  licensing  ministers.  Hereby  a 
connection  was  formed,  between  the  spiritual  authority  in 
England  and  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  America,  the  lat- 
ter constituting  a  part  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  dio- 
cese. 

But  this  connection  is  dissolved  by  the  revolution.  Had 
it  been  matter  of  right,  it  would  have  ceased  with  ihe  au- 
thority of  the  crown  ;  being  founded  *on  consent,  and  the 
ground  changed,  it  cannot  be  allowed  of  in  future,  consist- 
ently with  the  duties  resulting  from  our  allegiance.*  Even 
suppose  the  Bishop  of  London  hereafter  exempted,  by  act 
of  Parliament,  from  the  necessity  of  exacting  the  oaths,  a 
dependence  on  his  lordship  and  his  successors  in  that  See, 
would  be  liable  to  the  reproach  of  foreign  influence,  and 
render  Episcopalians  less  qualified  than  those  of  other 
communions,  to  be  entrusted  by  their  country  ;  neither  (as 
may  be  presumed)  will  it  be  claimed  after  the  acknowleg- 
ment  of  the  civil  independence,  being  contrary  to  a  prin- 
ciple clearly  implied   in  n)any  of  the  institutions  of  the 

•  Were  tlie  British  colonies  independent  of  their  parent 
kingdom,  the  Episcopahans  hi  this  countr.v  would  be  a  society 
independent  of  the  nulional  church. 

t)r.  Chandler's  Appeal  farther  defended.     Page  11  ■ 


--    I    11^  '"^^ 


Church  of  England,  particularly  in  the  34th  article  of  ret  \\ 

ligion  ;  which  asserts,  that  "  every  pfirticular  or  nationai  |' 'I 

church  hath  authority  to  ordain,  change,  and  abolish  cere-  ''  I 

monies  or  rites  of  the  church,  ordainrd  only  by  man's  au-  L^ 

thority,  so  that  all  things  be  done  to  edifying."     Though  ■' . 

the  Episcopal  Churches  in  these  states  will  not  be  national  | 

or  legal  establishments,  the  same  principle  applies,  being  ■ 

the  danger  of  foreign  jurisdiction.  ,  I 

The  ecclesiastical  power  over  the  greater  number  of  the 
churches,  formerly  subsisting  in  some  legislative  bodies  on 

this  continent,  is  also  abrogated  by  tiie  revolution.     In  the  ij 

southern  states,  where  the  Episcopal  Churches  were  main-  | 

tained  by  law,  the  assemblies  might  well  have  been  sup-  \ 

posed  empowered,  in  conjunction  with  the  other  branches  . 

of  legislation,  to  regulate  their  external  government ;  but  j 

now,  when  the  establishments  are  overturned,  it  would  ill 
become  those  bodies,  composed  of  men  of  various  deno- 
minations (however  respectable  collectively  and  as  indivi- 
duals) to  enact  laws  for  the  Episcopal  Churches,  which 
will  no  doubt,  in  common  with  others,  claim  and  exercise 
the  privilege  of  governing  themselves. 

All  former  jurisdiction  over  the  churches  being  thus 
withdrawn,and  the  chain  which  held  them  together  broken, 
it  would  seem,  that  their  future  continuance  can  be  pro- 
vided for  only  by  voluntary  associations  for  union  and 
good  government.  It  is  therefore  of  the  utmost  consequence 
to  discover  and  ascertain  the  principles,  on  which  such  as- 
sociations should  be  framed. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Whoever  should  consider  the  subject  before  us  as 
merely  speculative,  and  propose  the  suggestions  of  his  own 
judgment  or  fancy,  without  attention  to  the  sentiments, 
"habits,  and  circumstances  of  the  people  interested,  would 
probably  have  little  weight,  and  would  unquestionably  not 
be  useful.  In  the  present  investigation,  therefore,  it  will 
be  proper  to  keep  in  view  the  particular  situation  of  the 
churches  in  question. 


r 


In  most  cases  where  spiritual  jurisdiction  has  been  esta- 
blished or  defined,  such  has  been  the  connection  between 
church  and  state,  that  it  was  scarcely  possible  to  adopt 
measures,  which  did  not  show  some  traces  of  accommoda- 
tion to  political  views ;  but  this  may  be  avoided  in  the 
present  instance,  where  all  denominations  of  Christians  are 
on  a  level,  and  no  church  is  farther  known  to  the  public, 
than  as  a  voluntary  association  of  individuals,  for  a  lawful 
and  useful  purpose.  The  effect  of  this  should  be  the 
avoiding  of  whatever  may  give  the  churches  the  appear- 
ance of  being  subservient  to  party,  or  tend  to  unite  their 
members  on  questions  of  a  civil  nature.  This  is  unques- 
tionably agreeable  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel;  it  is 
conceived  to  be  also,  under  the  present  circumstances, 
agreeable  to  good  policy  ;  for  whatever  church  shall  aim 
at  such  subjects,  unless  on  account  of  an  invasion  of  their 
religious  privileges,  will  be  suspected  by  all  others,  as  aim- 
ing at  the  exclusive  government  of  the  country. 

In  tht'  parent  church,  though  whatever  regards  religion 
may  be  enacted  by  the  clergy  in  convocation,  it  must  af- 
terwards have  the  sanction  «if  all  other  orders  of  men, 
comprehended  in  the  parliament.  It  will  be  necessary  to 
deviate  from  the  practice  (though  not  fron)  the  principles) 
of  that  church,  by  convening  the  clergy  and  laity  in  one 
body.  The  former  will  no  doubt  have  an  influence  pro- 
portioned to  the  opinion  entertained  of  their  piety  and 
iearnmg  ;  but  will  never  (it  is  presumed)  wish  to  usurp  an 
exclusive  right  of  regulation  ;  a  sentiment  which  cannot 
more  properly  be  expressed  than  in  the  following  words 
of  that  great  defender  of  the  church  of  England  Mr.  Hook- 
er; "  The  most  natural  and  religious  course  of  making 
laws,  is  that  the  matter  of  them  be  taken  from  the  judg- 
ment of  the  wisest  m  those  things  which  they  are  to  con- 
cern. In  matters  of  God,  to  set  down  a  form  of  prayer,  a 
solemn  confe-^sion  of  the  articles  of  the  christian  faith  and 
ceremonies  meet  for  the  exercise  of  our  religion,  it  were 
unnatural  not  to  think  the  pastors  and  bishops  of  our  souls, 
a  great  deal  more  fit  than  men  tif  secular  trades  and  call- 
ings  howbeit,  when  all  that  the  wisdom  of  all  sorts  can 

do  is  done  for  the  devising  of  laws  in  the  church,  it  is  the 


9tMaiitftlmf'^t-*i^t0»m*m<:<n* 


9 


general  consent  of  all  that  giveth  them  the  form  and  vigoui 
of  laws."*  And  in  another  place  "  but  were  it  so  that  the 
clergy  might  give  laws  to  all  the  rest,  forasmuch  as  every 
estate  doth  desire  to  enlarge  the  bounds  of  their  own  liber- 
ties, it  is  easy  to  see  how  injurious  this  would  prove  to  men 
of  other  conditions."t 

The  power  of  electing  a  superior  order  of  ministers 
ought  to  be  in  the  clergy  and  iaity  together,  they  being 
both  interested  in  the  choice.  In  England,  the  bishops 
are  appointed  by  the  civil  authority ;  which  was  an  usur- 
pation of  the  crown  at  the  Norman  conquest,  but  since 
confirmed  by  acts  of  parliament.  The  primitive  churches 
were  generally  supplied  by  popular  elections;  even  in  the 
city  of  Rome,  the  privilege  of  electing  the  bishop  continued 
with  the  people  to  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century  ;  and  near 
those  times  there  are  resolves  of  councils,  that  none  should 
be  promoted  to  ecclesiastical  dignities,  but  by  election  of 
the  clergy  and  people.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  right 
vested  in  numerous  bodies,  occasioned  great  disorders ; 
which  it  is  expected  will  be  avoided,  when  the  people  shall 
exercise  the  right  by  representation. 

Deprivation  of  the  superior  order  of  clergy  should  also 
be  in  the  church  at  large.  In  England,  it  has  been  some- 
times done  by  the  civil  authority  ;  particularly  in  the  in- 
stances of  Queen  Mary's  Roman  Catholic  bishops  by 
Queen  Elizabeth,  and  of  the  non-juring  bishops  at  the  re- 
volution ;  which  last  occasioned  a  separation  from  the  na- 
tional church,  Sancroft  and  the  others  being  still  considered 
by  their  advocates  as  bishops  of  their  respective  sees,  and 
Tillotson  and  his  associates  reprobated  by  them  as  schis- 
matics. So  far  is  the  civil  policy  of  England  from  permit- 
ting an  entire  separation  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  that  in 
Queen  Ann's  reign,  when  Bishop  Watson  was  deprived 
for  immorality,  it  was  allowed,  that  as  a  peer  he  might 
have  objected  to  the  archbishop's  jurisdiction,  provided  he 
had  pleaded  his  privilege  in  time.  It  is  well  known,  thai 
the  interference  of  the  civil  authority  in  such  instances  as 
the  preceding  has  been  considered  by  many  as  inconsistent 


»  Ecclesiastic*!  Polity.     Page  433.    f  Ibid.  Fag's  43' 


If 


H 


10 

with  ecclesiastical  principles  ;  an  objection  which  will  be 
avoided,  when  deprivation  can  only  be  under  regulations  en- 
acted by  a  fair  representation  of  the  churches,  and  by  an 
authority  entirely  ecclesiastical.  It  is  presumed,  that  none 
will  so  far  mistake  the  principles  of  the  church  of  England, 
as  to  talk  of  the  impossibility  of  depriving  a  bishop. 

In  England,  dioceses  having  been  formed  before  parish- 
es, a  church  supposes  one  common  flock,  subject  to  a 
bishop  and  sundry  collegiate  presbyters  ;  without  the  idea 
of  its  being  necessarily  divided  into  smaller  communities, 
connected  with  their  respective  parochial  clergy  ;  the  lat- 
ter having  been  introduced  some  considerable  time  after  the 
conversion  of  the  nation  to  the  christian  faith.  One  natu- 
ral consequence  of  this  distinction,  will  be  to  retain  in  each 
church  every  power  that  need  not  be  delegated  for  the 
good  of  the  whole.  Another,  will  be  an  equality  of  the 
churches ;  and  not,  as  in  England,  the  subjection  of  all 
parish  churches  to  their  respective  cathedrals. 

The  last  circumstance  to  be  here  mentioned,  is  the  im- 
possibility that  the  churches  should  provide  a  support  for 
that  superior  order  of  clergy,  to  which  their  acknowledged 
principles  point ;  of  consequence,  the  duty  assigned  to 
that  order  ought  not  materially  to  interfere  with  their  em- 
ployments, in  the  station  of  parochial  clergy  ;  the  superin- 
tendence of  each  will  therefore  be  confined  to  a  small  dis- 
trict; a  favorite  idea  with  all  moderate  Episcopalians. 

It  is  proposed  to  offer  the  outlines  of  a  frame  of  church 
government,  founded  on  the  preceding  sentiments. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  author  offers  the  following  sketch  of  a  frame  of  go- 
vernment, though  he  is  far  from  thinking  it  complete ;  to 
make  it  so  even  according  to  his  own  ideas,  would  carry 
him  beyond  the  compass  intended  in  this  essay. 

As  the  churches  in  question  extend  over  an  immense 
space  of  country,  it  can  never  be  expected,  that  representa- 
tives from  each  church  should  assemble  in  one  place;  it 
will  be  more  convenieitf  for  them  to  associate  in  small  dis- 


11 

tficts,  from  which  representatives  may  be  sent  to  three  dif- 
ferent bodies,  the  continent  being  supposed  divided  into 
that  number  of  larger  districts  From  these  may  be  elect- 
ed a  body  representing  the  whole. 

In  each  smaller  district,  there  should  be  elected  a  general 
vestry  or  convention,  consisting  of  a  convenient  number 
(the  minister  to  be  one)  from  the  vestry  or  congregation  of 
each  chucch,  or  of  every  two  or  more  churches,  according 
to  their  respective  ability  of  supporting  a  minister.  They 
should  elect  a  clergyman  their  permanent  president ;  who, 
in  conjunction  with  other  clergymen  to  be  also  appointed 
by  the  body,  may  exercise  such  powers  as  are  purely  spi- 
ritual, particularly  that  of  admitting  to  the  ministry ;  the 
presiding  clergyman  and  others  to  be  liable  to  be  deprived 
for  just  causes,  by  a  fair  process,  and  under  reasonable 
laws;  meetings  to  be  held  as  often  as  occasion  may  require. 

The  assemblies  in  the  three  larger  districts  may  consist 
of  a  convenient  number  of  members,  sent  from  each  of  the 
smaller  districts  severally  within  their  bounds,  equally 
composed  of  clergy  and  laity,  and  voted  for  by  those  orders 
promiscuously ;  the  presiding  clergyman  to  be  always  one, 
and  these  bodies  to  meet  once  in  every  year. 

The  continental  representative  body  may  consist  of  a 
convenient  number  from  each  of  the  larger  districts,  formed 
equally  of  clergy  and  laity,  and  among  the  clergy,  formed 
equally  of  presiding  ministers  and  others  ;  to  meet  st;ited- 
ly  once  in  three  years.  The  use  of  this  and  the  preceding 
representative  bodies  is  to  make  such  regulations,  and  re- 
ceive  appeals  in  such  matters  only,  as  shall  be  judged  ne- 
cessary for  their  continuing  one  religious  communion. 

These  are  (what  was  promised)  no  more  than  outlines  ; 
which  it  will  not  be  proper  to  dismiss,  without  a  few  ob- 
servations on  the  degree  of  power  to  be  exercised,  in  mat- 
ters of  faith,  worship,  and  government. 

For  the  doctrinal  part,  it  would  perhaps  be  sufficient  to 
demand  of  all  admitted  to  the  ministry,  or  engaged  in  ec- 
clesiastical legislation,  the  questions  contained  in  the  book 
of  ordination  ;  which  extend  no  farther  than  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  scriptures,  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life  ;  yet  some 
general  sanction  may  be  given  to  the  thirty-nine  articles  of 


'( 


r 


r 


Illll■^    P<i  » I  I  it^tmttbmimmit^^ 


12 

religion,  so  as  to  adopt  their  leading  sense  ;*  which  is  here 
proposed  rather  as  a  chain  of  union,  than  for  exacting  en- 
tire uniformity  of  sentiment.  If  the  last  be  considered  as 
a  desirable  object,  the  articles  have  undeniably  been  found 
insufficient  for  the  purpose;  which  is  not  here  said  from 
an  opinion  that  such  was  the  intention  of  the  compilers, 
but  rather  with  a  conviction,  that  they  designedly  left  room 
for  a  considerable  latitude  of  sentiment ;  if  to  the  above 
tiiere  be  objected  the  danger  of  a  public  opposition  be- 
tween ministers,  this  obvious  answer  may  be  made  ;  that 
the  strictest  tests  ever  devised  cannot  be  so  effectual  to  pre- 
vent such  conduct,  as  the  regulation  contained  in  the  53d 
canon  ;  which  considers  it  as  indecent  and  punishable, 
independently  of  the  merits  of  the  doctrines  litigated. 

As  to  divine  worship,  there  must  no  doubt  be  some- 
where the  power  of  making  necessary  and  convenient  al- 
terations in  the  service  of  the  church.  But  it  ought  to  be 
used  with  great  moderation  ;  otherwise  the  communion 
will  become  divided  into  an  infinite  number  of  smaller  ones, 
all  differing  from  one  another  and  from  that  in  England  ; 
from  whence  we  may  expect  considerable  numbers  to  mi- 
grate hereafter  lo  this  country  ;  who,  if  they  find  too  wide 
a  deviation  from  the  ancient  practice,  will  "probably  form 
an  independant  communion  of  their  own.  Whatever  may 
in  other  respects  be  determined  on  this  head,  it  is  presum- 
ed the  Episcopalians  are  generally  attached  to  that  charac- 
teristic of  their  communion,  which  prescribes  a  settled  form 
of  prayer. 

On  the  subject  of  goverment,  whether  civil  orecclesias- 

*  Suppose  for  instance,  a  form  RESEMBLrNo  that  which  Dr. 
Ferdinando  Warner,  a  late  ecclesiastical  Historian  of  the  Episco- 
pal church,  says  (book  16)  was  proposed  >n  the  reign  of  Charles 
11.  b>  the  Lord  Keeper  Bridgman,  Bishop  Wilkins  and  Chief 
Justice  Hale,  ««to  serve  instead  of  all  former  subscriptions." 
1  he  torm  was  this,  "  1  do  hereby  profess  and  declare,  that  1  ap- 
prove the  doctrine,  worship  and  government  establishad  in 
the  church  of  England,  as  containing  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  that  I  will  not  endeavour  by  myself  or  any  other, 
directly  on ndiiectly,  to  bring  in  any  doctrine  contrary  to  that 
which  IS  so  established ;  and  I  do  hereby  promise  that  I  will  con- 
tmue  in  the  church  of  England,  and  will  not  do  any  thing  to 
disturb  the  peace  thereof." 


> ' I  ii\^t»um^^tamitHi^i»*li^UU*tit'^f'!  ti^i  'p—tt'  ih  I 


13 

lical,  there  is  great  truth  and  beauty  in  the  ibllowing  ob- 
servation of  the  present  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  "  the  great 
art  of  governing  consists  in  not  governing  too  much."  Per- 
haps it  would  be  sufficient,  if  an  immoral  life  were  follow- 
ed by  exclusion  from  the  sacrament  and  ecclesiastical  em- 
ployment ;  deprivation  from  church  benefices  following  of 
course.  The  above  is  not  to  be  understood  as  excluding 
the  enforcing  such  rules,  as  are  necessary  to  preserve  de- 
cency and  order.  As  to  excommunication  or  an  entire  sepa- 
ration from  the  church,  however  necessary  it  was  in  the 
primitive  ages,  when  Christianity  itself,  being  not  generally 
known,  and  misrepresented  as  a  sanction  for  lewdness, 
treason  and  clandestine  murders,  must  have  been  essen- 
tially wounded  by  the  immoralities  of  any  of  its  professors  j 
there  is  great  room  to  doubt  of  there  being  the  same  use  in 
it  at  present,  when  the  vices  of  a  professing  christian  are 
universally  known  to  be  opposite  to  the  precepts  of  his  re- 
ligion. Such  are  the  tyranny  and  hypocrisy  too  frequent- 
ly arising  from  the  exercise  of  this  power,  that  it  may  be 
thought  safest  to  leave  men  to  those  great  sanctions  of  du- 
ty, the  will  of  God  and  a  future  retribution  ;  attended  as 
they  will  generally  be  with  a  sense  of  shame,  dissuading 
from  actions  so  notoriously  scandalous,  as  to  be  a  founda- 
tion for  church  censures. 

In  the  preceding  pages,  the  idea  of  superintending  min- 
isters has  been  introduced  ;  but  not  a  w.^rd  has  been  said 
of  the  succession  supposed  necessary  to  constitute  the  Epis- 
copal character;  and  this  has  been  on  purpose  postponed, 
as  demanding  a  more  minute  discussion. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


On  the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  the  general  opinion  of  the 
churches  in  question  is  of  peculiar  consequence  ;  yet  it  can 
be  collected  only  from  circumstances;  to  assist  in  ascer- 
taining it,  the  two  following  facts  are  stated. 

Wherever  these  churches  have  been  erected,  the  eccle- 
siastical government  of  the  church  of  England  has  been 
adhered  *o ;  tbey  have  depended  on  the  English  bishops 


<f 


■  \0»lm  i«>wi«—i.JiM> 


14 

for  ordination  of  their  clergy,  and  on  no  occasion  expresseu 
a  dissatisfaction  witfi  Episcopacy.  This,  considering  the 
liberty  they  enjoyed  in  common  with  others,  of  forming 
their  churches  on  whatever  plan  they  liked  best,  is  a  pre- 
sumptive jjroof  of  their  preferring  the  Episcopal  govern- 
ment ;  especially  as  it  subjected  them  under  the  former 
connection  to  many  inconveniences,  such  as  sending  to  the 
distance  of  three  thousand  miles  for  ordination,  the  scandal 
sometimes  brought  on  tiie  church  by  tlip  ordination  of  low 
and  vicious  persons,  *  the  difficulty  of  getting  rid  of  immo- 
ral ministers,  and  that  several  of  the  clergy  formed  attach- 
ments of  which  this  country  has  been  always  jealous,  and 
which  have  at  last  proved  extremely  prejudicial  to  her  in- 
terests. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  cannot  be  produced  an  instance 
of  laymen  in  America,  unless  in  the  very  infancy  of  the 
settlements,  soliciting  the  introduction  of  a  bishop  ;+  it 
was  probably  by  a  great  majority  of  them  thought  an  haz- 
ardous experiment.  How  far  the  prerogative  of  the  king 
as  head  of  the  church  might  be  construed  to  extend  over 
the  colonies,  whether  a  bishop  would  bring  with  him  that 
part  of  the  law  which  respects  ecclesiastical  matters,  and 
whether  the  civil  powers  vested  in  bishops  in  England 
would  accompany  that  order  to  America,  were  questions 
which  for  aught  they  knew  would  include  principles  and 
produce  consequences,  dangerous  and  destructive  to  their 
oivil  rights.! 

*  Generally  by  deceptions  on  the  Bishop  of  London. 

j-  If  there  has  been  any,  it  must  have  been  from  so  few,  as 
rather  to  corroborate  than  weaken  the  sentime  t  convcjed. 

^  Whether  the  above  appendages  would  have  accompanied 
an  English  bishop  to  America,  the  author  is  no  judge.  Tliat 
they  were  gener.illy  feared  by  the  Episcopalian  laity,  he  thinks 
the  only  way  of  acco  nling  for  the  cold  reception  they  gave 
(a  fact  universally  known)  lo  every  proposal  tor  the  introdtic 
tion  of  a  bi&hop.  Those  who  pleaded  for  the  measure  on  a  plan 
purely  .•.piriUiul,  thought  he  would  not  be  invested,  by  the  laws 
of  England,  with  such  powers ;  but  in  case  it  had  proved  other- 
wise, they  proposed  the  limiting  him  by  act  of  parliament. 
What  the  people  would  have  thought  of  measures,  which  must 
have  required  an  act  of  that  body  to  render  them  harmless,  no 
person  formerly  acquainted   with  their  temper  and  sentiments 


MjMiiWiiH*  i*!iiii  f  inaJ 


16 

From  these  two  facts  it  may  fairly  be  inferred,  that  the 
Episcopalians  on  this  continent  will  wish  to  institute  among 
themselves  an  Episcopal  government,  as  soon  as  it  shall 
appear  practicable,  and  that  this  government  will  not  be 
attended  with  the  danger  of  tyranny,  either  temporal  or 
spiritual. 

But  it  is  generally  understood,  that  the  succession  can- 
not at  present  be  obtained.  From  the  parent  church 
most  unquestionably  it  cannot ;  whether  from  any  is 
presumed  to  be  more  than  we  can  at  present  be  informed. 
But  the  proposal  to  constitute  a  frame  of  government,  tine 
execution  of  which  shall  depend  on  the  pleasure  of  persons 
unknown,  differing  from  us  in  language,  habits,  and  per- 
haps in  religious  principles,  has  too  ludicrous  an  appear- 
anceto  deserve  consideration  ;  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  the  war  in  which  our  country  is  engaged  preclude  us 
from  procuring  the  succession  in  those  quarters,  to  which 
alone  application  could  consistently  be  made  ;  the  danger 
of  offending  the  British  government  constraining  (perhaps) 
a  refusal  of  what,  it  would  of  course  be  indelicate  in  us  to 
ask.  Now,  on  the  one  hand,  to  depart  from  Episcopacy, 
would  be  giving  up  a  leading  characteristic  of  the  com- 
Riunion ;  which,  however  indifferently  considered  as  to 
divine  appointment,  might  be  productive  of  all  the  evils 
generally  attending  changes  of  this  sort.  On  the  other 
hand,  by  delaying  to  adopt  measures  for  the  continuance 
of  the  ministry,  the  very  existence  of  the  churches  is  haz- 
arded, and  duties  of  positive  and  indispensable  obligation 
are  neglected. 

The  conduct  meant  to  be  recommended,  as  founded  on 
the  preceding  sentiments,  is  to  include  in  the  proposed 
Irarae  of  government  a  general  approbation  of  Episcopacy, 
and  a  declaration  of  an  intention  to  procure  the  succession 
as  soon  as  conveniently  may  be ;  but  in  the  mean  time 
to  carify  the  plan  into  effect  without  waiting  for  the  suc- 
cession. 

The  first  part  of  this  proposal  is  conceived  to  be  found- 
ed on  the  plain  dictates  of  propriety,  prudence,  and  raode- 

aeed.  be  told  ;  and  whether  they  judged  right  or  not,  recent 
"^ vents  have  abundantly  shown. 


''iW^WPHHPMMHMM^h 


16 

ration;  for  if  the  undertakintr  proceed  on  ackuowledgea 

principles,  there  will  be  Car  less  shock  to  ancient  habits, 

and  less  cause  of  intestine  divisions,  than  if  new  principles 

are  to  be  sought  for  and  established.      To  illustrate  this  by 

.  .  an  allusion ;  had  our  old  governments  been  so  adjusted  to 

'  the  genius  of  the  people  and  their  present  circumstrmces, 

I  as  at   the  revolution   to  have   required   no  farther  change 

than  what  necessarily  arose  fron)  the  extinction  of  royal 

I  authority,  it  is  obvious,  that  many  pernicious  controversies 

'  would  have  been  prevented.     Such,  however,  except  in  a 

^  /•w  instances,  was  nut  the  happiness  of  the  colonies.     But 

it  is  precisely  the  situation  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in 

,  their  religious  concerns;  none  of  their  constituent  princi- 

1  pies  being  thereby  changed,  but  what  were  founded  on  the 

authority  of  the  king.  ^ 

,  In  the  minds  of  some,  the  idea  of  Episcopacy  will  be 

\  connected  with  that  of  immoderate  power;  to  which  it  may 

be  answered,  that  power  becomes  dangerous,  not  from  the 

precedency  of  one  man,  but  from  his  being  independent. 

Had  Rome  been  governed  by  a  presbytery  instead  of  a 

bishop;  and  had  that  presbytery  been  invested  with  the 

independent  riches  and  dominion  of  the  papal  see  ;   it  is 

easy  to  conceive,  of  their  acquiring  as  much  powpr  over 

the  christian  world,  as  was  ever  known  in  a  Gregory  or  a 

,  Paul. 

It  may  be  further  objected,  that  Episcopacy  is  anti- 
republican  ;  and  therefore  opposed  to  those  ideas  which 
all  good  citizens  ought  to  promote,  for  securing  the  peace 
and  happiness  of  the  community.  But  this  supposed  rela- 
tion between  Episcopacy  and  monarchy  arises  from  con- 
founding English  Episcopacy  with  the  subject  at  large. 
In  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  it  was  customary  to  debate 
.  ~  and  determine  in  a  general  concourse  of  all  christians  in  the 

I  same  city;  among  whom  the  Bishop  was   no  more  than 

president.     Matters  were  indeed  too  often  conducted  tu- 
\  multuously,  and   after  a  manner  which   no  prudent  and 

I  peaceable  man  would  wish  to  see  imitated  ;  but  the  churches 

I  were  not  the  less  Episcopal   on  that  account.     Very  few 

systems  of  religious  discipline  on  this  continent  are  equally 
republican  with  that  proposed  in  the  preceding  pages.  The 


M«M««i<p4«9ik4lhMMMi«WM 


17 

adage  of  Kin^  James  I.  "  No  Bishop  no  King,"  and  "  No 
King  no  Bisliop,"  ought  only  to  be  understood  concerning 
that  degree  of  Episcopal  power,  together  with  its  civil  ap- 
pendages, of  which  he  certainly  meant  it. 

But  it  will  be  also  said,  that  the  very  name  of"  Bishop" 
is  offensive;  if  so,  change  it  for  another;  let  the  superior 
clergymen  be  a  president,  a  superintendent,  or  in  plain 
English,  and,  according  to  the  literal  translation  of  the 
original,  an  overseer.  However,  if  names  are  to  be  repro- 
bated, because  the  powers  annexed  to  them  have  been 
abused,  there  are  few  appropriated  to  eifheir  civil  or  eccle- 
siastical distinctions,  which  would  retain  theirplaces  in  out- 
catalogue. 

The  other  part  of  the  proposal  was  an  immediate  exe* 
cution  of  the  plan,  without  waiting  for  the  Episcopal  suc- 
cession. This  is  founded  on  the  presumption,  that  the 
worship  of  God  and  the  instruction  and  reformation  of  the 
people  are  the  principal  objects  of  ecclesiastical  discipline: 
if  so,  to  relinquish  them  from  a  scrupulous  adherence  to 
Episcopacy,  is  sacrificing  the  substance  to  the  ceremony. 

It  will  be  said,  we  ought  to  continue  as  we  are,  with  the 
hope  of  obtaining  it  hereafter.  But  are  the  acknowledged 
ordinances  of  Christ's  holy  religion  to  be  suspended  for 
years,  perhaps  as  long  as  the  present  generation  shall  con- 
tinue, out  of  delicacy  to  a  disputed  point,  and  that  relating 
only  to  externals  ?  It  is  submitted,  how  far  such  ideas  en- 
courage the  suspicion  of  want  of  attachment  to  any  parti- 
cular church,  except  so  far  as  is  subservient  to  some  civi! 
system.  All  the  obligations  of  conformity  to  the  divin'j 
ordinances,  all  the  arguments  which  prove  the  connexion 
between  public  worship  and  the  morals  of  a  people,  com- 
bine to  urge  the  adopting  some  speed}'  measures,  to  provide 
for  the  public  ministry  in  these  rhurclies ;  if  such  as  have 
been  above  recommended  should  be  adopted,  and  the  Epis- 
copal succession  afterwards  obtained,  any  supposed  im- 
perfections of  the  intermediate  ordinations  might,  if  it  were 
judged  proper,  be  supplied  without  acknowledging  their 
nullity,  by  a  conditional  ordination  resembling  that  of 
conditional  baptism  in  the  liturgy  ;  the  above  was  an  expe- 
Jient  proposed  by  Archbishop  Tillotson,  Bishops  Patrick, 
b2 


18 

Stillingtleet,  and  others,  at  the  revolution,  and  had  been 
actually  practised  in  Ireland  by  Archbishop  Branihall.* 

But  it  will  be  said,  the  dropping  the  succession  even  for 
a  time  would  be  a  departure  from  the  principles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  This  prejudice  is  too  common  not  to 
deserve  particular  attention. 


CHAPTER  V. 

It  would  be  to  the  greatest  degree  surprising,  if  the 
Church  of  England,  acknowledged  by  all  Protestant 
churches  to  lay  a  sufficient  stress  on  the  essential  doctrines 
and  duties  of  the  gospel,  should  be  found  so  immoderately 
attached  to  a  matter  of  external  order,  as  must  in  some 
cases  be  ruinous  to  her  communion.  But,  far  from  this,  it 
will  not  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  a  temporary  departure 
from  Episcopacy  in  the  present  instance  would  be  war- 
ranted by  her  doctrines,  by  her  practice,  and  by  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  Episcopal  government  is  asserted. 

Whatever  that  church  holds  must  be  included  in  the 
"  thirty-nine  articles  of  religion  ;"  which  were  evidently 
intended  for  a  comprehensive  system  of  necessary  doctrine. 
But  what  say  these  articles  on  the  present  subject }  Sim- 
ply, that  "  the  book  of  consecration  of  archbishops  and 
bishops  and  the  ordering  of  priests  and  deacons,  doth  con- 
tain all  things  necessary  thereunto;  neither  hath  it  any 
thing  that  of  itself  is  superstitious  and  ungodly."!  The 
canr,ns  speak  the  same  sense  censuring  those  who  shall 
"affirm  that  the  government  of  the  Church  of  England  by 
archbishops,  bishops,  &c.  is  antichristian,  or  repugnant  to 
the  word  of  God. "|  And  those  who  "shall  affirm  that 
the  form  and  manner  of  making  and  consecrating  bishops, 
pric.-us,  and  deacons,  containeth  any  thing  in  it  that  is  re- 
pugnant to  the  word  of  God,  or  that  they  who  are  thus 
made  bishops,  &c.  are  not  lawfully  made,  &c."«§. 

*  Nichrtl's  Defence  of  tl)e  Church  of  England,  Introduction. 
f  AT-irle  36. 
I  C  vu;:-,  7. 
'i  Canon  8. 


19 

How  can  such  moderation  of  sentiment  and  expression 
be  justified,  if  the  Episcopal  succession  be  so  binding,  as  to 
allow  no  deviation  in  a  case  of  extreme  necessity  ?  Had 
the  church  of  England  decreed  concerning  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper,  only  that  they  were  "  not  repugnant 
to  the  word  of  God,"  and  that  her  offices  for  those  sacra- 
ments were  "  not  superstitious  and  ungodly,"  would  she 
not  be  censured  by  almost  all  Christendom,  as  renouncing 
the  obligation  of  those  sacraments  ?  Equally  improper 
would  be  the  application  of  such  moderate  expressions  to 
Episcopacy,  if  (as  some  imagine)  she  considers  it  to  be  as 
much  binding  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper. 

The  book  of  consecration  and  ordination  carries  the  idea 
no  farther,  except  that  the  preface  as  altered  at  the  resto- 
ration (for  it  was  not  so  in  the  old  preface)  affirms  that 
"  from  the  apostle's  times  there  have  been  these  orders  in 
Christ's  church,  bishops,  priests  and  deacons."  But  there 
is  an  evident  difference  between  this  and  the  asserting  the 
unlawfulness  of  deviating  from  that  practice  in  an  instance, 
extraordinary  and  unprovided  for. 

Next  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  let  us  enquire, 
whether  her  practice  will  furnish  us  with  a  precedent  to 
justify  the  liberty  we  plead. 

Many  of  the  English  protestants,  during  the  persecu- 
tion by  Queen  Mary,  took  refuge  in  foreign  countries,  par- 
ticularly in  Germany  and  Geneva.  When  protestantism 
revived  at  the  auspicious  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  cloud  was  gathering  on  the  conti- 
nent in  consequence  of  the  emperor's  victories  over  the 
princes  of  the  Smacaldic  league,  many  of  the  exiles  re- 
turned to  their  native  land;  some  of  whom,  during  their 
absence,  had  been  ordained  according  to  the  customs  ot 
the  countries  where  they  had  resided  ;  these  were  admitted 
without  re-ordinatio  .  to  preach  and  hold  benefices;  one 
of  them*  was  promoted  to  a  deanry ;  but  at  the  same 
time,  as  several  of  them  were  endeavouring  to  make  inno- 
vations in  the  established  church,  it  was  provided  in  a  law 
(13th  Elizabeth  12.)  that  «'  whoever  shall  pretend  to  be  a 

*  WhitUngbam, 


)''  20 

priest  or  minister  of  God's  holy  word,  by  reason  of  anj 
I  other  form  of  institution,  consecration  or  ordering,  than 

the  form  set  forth  by  act  of  parliament,  before  the  feast  of 
.  ,  the  nativity  of  Christ  next  ensuing,  shall  in  the  presence 

of  tiie  bishop declare  his  assent  and  subscribe  to  all 

I  the  articles  of  religion  agreed  on,  &c."*     Here  existed  an 

,  extraordinary  occasion,  not  provided  for  in  the  institutions 

for  common  use  ;  the  exigency  of  the  case  seems  to  have 
I  been  considered  ;  and  there  followed  a  toleration,  if  not 

iruplied  approbation,  of  a  departure  in  that  instance  from 
Episcopal  ordination.  There  cannot  be  expected  another 
example,  because  no  similar  instance  of  necessity  has  hap- 
pened ;  unless  that  at  the  restoration  be  considered  as 
such ;  but,  it  is  presumed,  no  stress  will  be  laid  on  the 
omission  of  the  like  indulgence  at  that  period  ;  when  the 
I  minds  of  the  ruling  Episcopalians,  irritated  by  recent  suf- 

I  ferings,  were  less  intent  on  conciliation  than  on  retalia- 

tion.+ 

Let  us  next  take  a  view  of  the  grounds  on  which  the 
authority  of  Episcopacy  is  asserted. 

The  advocates  for  this  form  maintain,  that  there  having 
been  an  Episcopal  power  originally  lodged  by  Jesus  Christ 
with  his  apostles,  and  by  them  exercised  generally  in  per- 
son, but  sometimes  by  delegation  (as  in  the  instances  of 

•  Bishop  Burnet  says  (History  of  his  own   times,  anno  1661) 

that  until  the  act  of  uniformitv ,  passed  soon  after  the  restorntion, 

•,  "those  who  came  to  England  Irom  the  foreign  churches  had  not 

been  required  to  be  ordained  among  us."     If  so,  the  argument 

founded  on  practice  extends  farther  than  it  lias  been  here  urged. 

The  act  of  Elizabeth,  however,  iiad  no  operation  beyoi.d  the 

Christmas  next  ensuing  ;  neither  indeed  did  it  pronounce  that 

I   •  a  good  ordination  which  would  have  been  otherwise  defiective  ; 

i  but  its  being  mean'  to  comprehend  those  who  were  at  that 

I  '  TIME  invested  with  foreign  non-episcopalian  ordination,  is  evi- 

I  dent  from  their  being  actually  allowed  to  preach  and  hold  bene- 

I  ficcs,  on  the  condition  of  their  subscribing  the  thirty-nine  ar- 

i  tides. 

■j-  Bishop  Burnet  assigns  a  reason  still  less  excusable  ;  that 

'  many  great  pri  ferments  were  in  the  hands  of  obnoxious  persons, 

\  who^  on  account  of  their  services  towails  the  restoration,  could 

not  otherwise  be  ejected,  than  by  makmg  the  terms  of  confer 

tnity  difficult.     History  of  his  own  times,  anno  1661. 


Nigiiiri  iii>irf  I**  imtfmm0»**      m^mt  m 


^1 

rimothy  and  Titus)  the  same  was  conveyed  by  them  be 
fore  their  decease  to  one  pastor  in  each  church,  which  ge- 
nerally comprehended  all  the  Christians  in  a  city  and  a 
convenient  surrounding  district.  Thus  were  created  the 
apostolic  successors,  who,  on  account  of  their  settled  resi- 
dence are  called  bishops  by  restraint ;  whereas  the  apos- 
tles themselves  were  bishops  at  large,  exercising  Episcopal 
power  over  all  the  churches,  except  in  the  case  of  St. 
James,  who  from  the  beginning  was  bishop  of  Jerusalem. 
From  this  time  the  word  "  episcopos,"  used  in  ihe  New 
Testament  indiscriminately  with  the  word  "  presbuteros," 
(particularly  in  the  20th  chapter  of  the  Acts  where  the  same 
persons  are  cihed  "episcopoi"  and  "  presbuteroi,")  be- 
came appropriated  to  the  superior  order  of  ministers. 
That  the  apostles  were  thus  succeeded  by  an  order  of  mi- 
nisters superior  to  pastors  in  general,  Episcopalians  think 
they  prove  by  the  testimonies  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and 
from  the  improbability  that  so  great  an  innovation  (as  some 
conceive  it)  could  have  found  general  and  peaceable  pos- 
session in  the  second  or  third  century,  when  Episcopacy  is 
on  both  sides  acknowledged  to  have  been  prevalent.*  The 
argument  is  here  concisely  stated,  but  (as  is  believed)  im- 
partially ;  the  manner  in  which  the  subjt-'ct  is  handled  by 
Mr.  Hooker  and  Bishop  Hoadly  being  particularly  kept 
in  view. 

Can  any  reasonable  rule  of  construction  make  this 
amount  to"  more  than  ancient  and  apostolic  practice  ? 
That  the  apostles  adopted  any  particular  form,  affords  a 
presumption  of  its  being  the  best,  all  circumstances  at  that 
time  considered  ;  but  to  Biake  it  unalterably  binding,  it 
must  be  shown  enjoined  in  positive  precept.  Bishop 
Hoadly  clearly  points  out  this  distinction  in  his  answer  to 
Dr.  Calamy.  The  latter  having  considered  it  as  the  sense 
of  the  Church,  in  the  preface  to  the  ordinal,  that  the  three 
orders  were  of  divine  appointment,  and  urged  it  as  a  reason 
for  non-conformity ;  the  bishop,  with  evident  propriety, 

•  The  original  of  the  order  of  bishops  was  from  the  presby- 
ters choosing  one  from  among  themselves  to  be  a  stated  presi- 
dent in  their  assemblies,  in  the  2d  or  3d  century.  Smectymnuan 
divines,  as  quoted  in  Neal's  history  of  the  Puritans,  anno  1640 


9 -.aaiuiii-— — »^N»i  '     m       i<i"  wfc   ■         iif  ■<!  N<»ni,-^^ 


,  22 

remarks  that  the  service  pronounces  no  such  thing ;  and 
that  therefoie  Dr.  Calamy  created  a  difficulty,  where  the 
church  had  made  none  ;  there  being  "  some  diflorence," 
(says  hp)  "  between  these  two  sentences — bishops,  priests, 

■\  and  deacons,  are  three  distinct  orders  in  the  church  bif  di- 

vine appointment — and — -from  the  apostWs  time  there 
have  been  in  Christ's  Church  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons,"*+ 

Now,  if  the  form  of  church  government  rest  on  no  other 
foundation,  than  ancient  and  apostolic  practice,  it  is  hum- 
bly submitted  to  consideration,  whether  Episcopalians  will 
not  be  thought  scarcely  deserving  the  name  of  Christians, 
should  they,  rather  than  consent  to  a  tempoffcry  deviation, 
abandon  every  ordinance  of  positive  and  divine  appoint- 
:nent. 

Any  person,  reading  what  some  divines  of  the  Church 

I  of  England  have  written  against  dissenters,  would  in  ge- 

neral widely  mistake  their  meaning,  should  he  apply  to  the- 
subject  before  us,  the  censures  he  will  sometimes  meet 
with,  which  have  in  view,  not  merely  the  merits  of  the 
question,  but  the  duty  of  conforming  to  the  established 
church,  in  all  things  not  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  Thus 
Bishop  Stillingfleet,  who  at  the  restoration  had  written 
'.vith  great  tenderness  towards  the  dissenters,  and  many 
years  afterwards  preached  a  sermon  on  a  public  occasion, 

'  eontaining  severe  animadversions  on  their  separation  5  on 

being  accused  of  inconsistency,  replies  (in  the  preface  to  his 
Creatise  on  the  unlawfulness  of  separation)  that  the  former 

'  Reasonableness  of  conformity,  part  I. 

\  The  same  distinction  is  accurately  drawn  and  fully  proved 

'  by  Stillingfleel  in  "  the  Irenicum."    But  as  that  learned  prelate 

was  afterwards  dissatisfied  with  his  work  (the  most  probably 
not  with  that  part  of  it  which  would  have  been  to  our  purpose) 

I  it  might  seem  uncandid  to  cite  the  authority  of  his  opinion. 

I  Burnet,  his  cotemporary  and  friend,  says  (History  of  his  own 

times,  anno  1661)  *<  to  avoid  the  imputation  that  book  brought 

1  on  him,  he  went  into  the  humours  of  an  high  sort  of  people  be- 

yond    what  became  him,  perhaps   beyond    his  own    sense  of 

t  things."     The  book,  however  was  it  seems  easier  hethacvted 

\  than  hefuted  ;    for  though  otiensive  to  many  of  both  parties,  it 

was  managed  (says  the  same  author)  with  so  much  learning  ant' 
skill,  that  none  of  either  side  tver  undertook  to  answer  it 


fctmfil.aiii^tiri 


23 

was  '*  before  the  laws  were  established  ;'*  meaning  princi- 
pally the  act  of  uniformity.  So  al^o  Bishof)  Hoadlysays, 
the  acceptance  of  re-ordination  by  the  dissenting  ministers, 
would  not  be  a  denial  of  that  right,  which  (as  they  con- 
ceived) presbyters  had  to  ordain  ;  but  a  confession  that 
their  former  ordination  was  "  so  far  null  and  void,  that 
God  did  not  approve  the  exercise  of  that  right  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  lawful  settled  method.''*  Dr.  Henry  Maurice 
also,  who  has  written  with  great  learning  and  reputation 
in  defence  of  Episcopacy,  makes  the  same  distinction;  ob- 
serving  that  the  "  dissenters  do  foreign  churches  great  in- 
justice when  they  concern  them  in  their  quarrel,"  thf  or- 
dination of  the  latter  being  "  not  only  without,  but  in 
opposition  to  bishops,  against  all  the  established  laws  of 
this  church,  &c."+  Even  where  the  same  distinction  is  not 
expressed,  it  is  generally  implied.  Whether  the  above 
censures  are  well  or  ill  founded,  is  a  question  that  has  no 
connection  with  our  subject ;  they  cannot  be  thought  ap- 
plicable to  the  liberty  here  pleaded.^ 

Again,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  some  writers  of  the 
Church  of  England  apply  very  strong  expressions  to 
Episcopacy,  calling  it  a  divine  appointment,  the  ordinance 
uf  Christ,  "and  the  law  of  God,  and  pronounce  it  to  be  of 
divine  right.  Yet,  in  reason  they  ought  to  be  understood 
only  as  asserting  it  to  be  binding,  wherever  it  can  conve- 
niently be  had  :  not  that  law  and  gospel  are  to  cease 
rather  than  Episcopacy.     Mr.  Hooker,  who  uses  such 

^^  Reply  to  objections  against  Episcopal  ordination. 

f  Maurice  against  Clarkson,  page  453. 

i  In  England,  the  members  of  the  established  church  con- 
sider the  dissenters  as  blameable  in  not  conforming  to  it  as  such, 
tliere  being  nothing  required  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  These 
on  the  other  hand  blame  the  members  of  the  establishment,  for 
not  yielding  to  their  conscientious  scruples,  which  thus  exclude 
them  from  public  offices,  and  subject  them  to  considerable 
burthens.  Such  were  the  principal  sources  of  the  animosities 
which  have  subsisted  between  the  two  parties ;  and  hence  arises 
an  argument  for  charity  and  mutual  forbearance  among  religious 
societies  in  America,  with  whom  the  same  causes  of  contention 
and  mutual  censure  have  no  place,  and  with  whom  of  course 
the  same  degree  of  bitterness  would  be  less  excusable  than  in 
England. 


«»*«Ji— fcJhM*»w»«ifi^«»i^tOi  I  mil  I  11  ■—  IP  l^>    I  •  ** 


2t4 


biroiig  expressions,  makes  nevertheless  a  clear  dist.ncUoii 
between  matters  of  necessity  and  those  of  ecclesiastical 
polity  ;  as  may  be  seen  at  large  in  his  third  and  fourth 
books.  Even  Archbishop  Whitgift,  said  by  some*  to  have 
been  the  first  in  his  high  station,  under  whose  patronage 
such  pretensions  were  annexed  to  Episcopacy,  and  whose 
zeal  for  that  form  and  the  other  rights  of  the  church,  made 
him  verily  believe  in  the  famous  conference  at  Hampton 
court,  that  <' the  king  spoke  by  the  spirit  of  God,"  is 
quoted  by  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  as  asserting  that  "  no  kind 
of  government  is  expressed  in  the  word  or  can  necessarily 
be  concluded  from  thence."t  In  short,  particular  expres- 
sions which  writers  use  from  zeal  for  that  form  they  endea- 
vour to  establish,  are  not  to  be  given  in  proof  of  their  opi- 
nions,  concerning  the  conduct  suited  to  extraordinary 
occasions.  Many  instances  to  the  same  purpose  might  be 
produced  of  English  divines  qualifying  such  high  expres- 
sions and  guarding  against  seeming  consequences  ;  but 
this  part  of  the  subject  shall  conclude  with  the  authority  of 
a  clergyman  of  this  country,  who  a  few  years  ago  wrote  on 
Episcopal  government.  He  insists  on  it  as  of  divine  right, 
asserts  that  "  the  laws  relating  to  it  bind  as  strongly  as  the 
laws  which  oblige  us  to  receive  baptism  or  the  holy  eucha- 
rist,"t  and  that  "  if  the  succesion  be  once  broken,  not  all 
ihe'men  on  earth,  not  all  the  angels  of  heaven,  without  an 
immediate  commission  from  Christ,  can  restore  it."  §  Ne- 
vertheless, he  acknowleges  "  the  necessity  of  bishops  is 
no  more  than  a  general  necessity,  or  in  other  words, 
bishops  according  to  the  belief  of  the  Church  of  England, 
are  necessary  only  where  they  can  be  had.'il  He  then 
distinguishes  between  cases  where  the  necessity  is  real,  and 
those  where  Episcopacy  had  been  willingly  and  expressly 

•  Dr.  Warner  says  (book  14)  that  "  Archbisliop  Bancroft  was 
;he  first  man  who  had  preached  up  the  divine  right  ot  Episco- 
pacy in  the  church  of  England."  Tlie  first  occasion  of  his  doing 
this,  is  said  by  others  to  have  been  when  he  v/as  \>  hitgih  s 
chaplain, 

+  Irenicum,  chapter  38. 

I  Dr.  Chandler's  appeal,  page  7.     &  Ibitt,  pa?e  ■ 

1!  Chandler'i  unpe?.!  defended,  page  68. 


25 

k-ejected,  as  by  the  people  of  Scotland  and  the  English  dis- 
senters. 

Now  if  even  those  who  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine 
right,  conceive  the  obligation  to  it  to  be  not  binding  when 
that  idea  would  be  destructive  of  public  worship,  much 
more  must  they  think  so,  who  indeed  venerate  and  prefer 
that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any 
idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case.  This  the  author  believes 
to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in 
America  ;  in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  favour  un- 
questionably the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England,  and,  as 
he  believes,  the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates 
for  piety,  virtue  and  abilities. 


CHAPTER  VL 


It  is  to  be  expected,  that  the  far  greater  number  oi  wn- 
jers  in  defence  of  Episcopal  government,  confine  their  ob- 
servations to  the  ordinary  state  of  the  church,  without 
giving  their  opinions  on  supposed  cases  of  necessity.  Yet, 
if  it  were  required  to  multiply  authorities,  and  writers  were 
consulted  with  that  view,  it  is  probable  that  many  more 
than  the  following  might  be  produced.  But,  as  the  law- 
fulness of  deviation,  in  cases  of  necessity,  is  a  fair  inference 
from  the  sentiments  of  expressly  to  the  purpose  (perhaps) 
all,  it  will  be  sufficient  if  those  quoted  rank  among  the 
most  respectable  for  their  authority. 

The  first  mentioned  shall  be  xhe  venerable  Hooker.  His 
books  on  ecclesiastical  polity  are  universally  allowed  to  be 
a  work  of  masterly  judgment,  and  deep  erudition ;  they 
are  frequently  spoken  of  as  containing  the  most  rational 
and  complete  defence  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  and  were 
recommended  by  king  Charles  I.  (whose  attachment  to 
Episcopacy  will  not  be  doubted)  as  the  best  for  fixing  the 
principles  of  his  children,  on  those  questions  which  had 
distracted  the  nation.  This  accomplished  writer,  after 
c 


r 


avM^aniMAM 


I 


-26 

rissertingwith  s;reatzpal  the  authority  of  Episcopal  govern- 
ment, mnkes  the  follinving  exception;  ••' wlien  the  exi- 
gence of  necessity  iloth  constrain  to  leave  the  usual  ways  of 
the  church,  which  otherwise  we  would  willingly  keep  ; 
when  the  church  must  needs  have  some  ordained  and 
neither  hath  nor  can  have  possibly  a  bishop  to  ordain  ;  in 
case  of  such  necessity  the  law  of  God  hath  oftentimes  and 
may  give  place;  and  therefore  we  are  not,  simply  and 
without  exception,  to  urge  a  lineal  descent  of  power  from 
the  apostles,  by  continued  succession  in  every  eflfectual  or- 
iination."* 

The  same  great  man,  speaking  in  another  place  of  some 
.Junrhes  not  Episcoi)al,  says,  "  this  their  defect  and  im- 
perfection, 1  had  rather  lament  in  suci)  a  case  than  exag- 
j;erate;  considering  that  men  oftentimes,  without  any 
"fault  of  their  own,  may  be  driven  to  want  that  kind  of  poli- 
ty or  regiment,  which  is  best;  and  to  content  themselves 
with  that  which  either  the  irremediable  error  of  former 
limes,  or  the  necessity  of  the  present   hath   cast   upon 

them.-'l' 

Had  Mr.  Hooker  been  asked  to  define  <'  the  exigence 
of  necessity;-  could  he  have  imagined  any  more  urgent 
than  the  case  in  question?  Or  had  he  been  enquired  ot 
concerning  the  ^^necessities  of  present  times;''  could 
he  have  mentioned  any  in  the  cases  to  which  he  alludes 
(those  of  Scotland  and  Geneva,)  so  strongly  pleading  for 
the  liberty  he  allows,  as  those  now  existing  in   America  ? 

The  name  of  Bishop  Hoadly  will  probably  be  as  long 
remembered,  as  any  on  the  list  of  British  worthies ;  and 
will  never  be  mentioned  without  veneration  of  the  strength 
of  his  abilities,  the  liberality  of  his  sentiments,  and  his  en- 
lightened zeal  for  civil  liberty.  He  has  written  in  defence 
of  Episcopal  government,  with  more  argument  and  better 
temper  than  is  commonly  to  be  met  with  in  controversial 
writings.  This  amiable  prelate  expresses  himselt  as  fol- 
lows, "  as  to  the  credit  of  the  reformed  churches  abroad, 
we  think  it  no  presumption,  as  we  censure  them  not,  who 
in  a  case  of  necessity  went  out  of  the  ordinary  method,  so 

'  Ecclesiastical  Toliu,  Book  7,  Section  U 
•  Ibid,  Hook  3,  Scclioii  11- 


27 

to  expect  they  will  not  censure  us  for  not  approving  sued 
irregularities,  where  there  is  no  such  necessity  for  them."' 
In  another  place  he  says,  "  for  my  own  part  I  can- 
not argue  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  a  christian 
church,  because  it  is  of  apostolical  institution  ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  I  do  argue,  that  we  are  obliged  to  the  utmost 
of  our  knowledge,  to  conform  ourselves  to  the  apostolical 
model,  unless  in  such  where  the  imitation  is  impracticahh 
or  would  manifestly  do  more  hurt  than  good  to  the  church 
of  Christ ;  neither  of  which  can  possibly  be  affirmed  in  the 
ordinari/  state  of  the  church  ''t 

What  necessity  was  there  of  the  '•  reformed  churches 
abroad"  equal  to  ours?  Is  not  an  immediate  imitation 
of  the  ancient  usage  "  impracticable  ?"  VVould  not  such  a 
plan  as  has  been  proposed  be  conforming  (as  far  as  circum- 
stances allow)  to  our  ideas  of  "  the  apostolic  model  ?" 

The  character  of  Archbishop  Usher  for  extensive  learn- 
ing and  fervent  piety  is  generall)*  known;  and  is  distin- 
guished both  by  his  great  moderation  on  the  subject  of 
Episcopacy,  and  by  the  service  it  has  received  from  his 
indefatigable  researches.  In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Bernard  he 
writes  thus  "  in  places  where  bishops  cannot  be  had,  the 
ordination  of  presbyters  stands  valid.":};  What  part  of 
the  christian  world  could  the  learned  primate  have  named, 
of  which  it  could  have  been  so  properly  said  as  it  may  be 
of  ours,  that  "ordination  by  bishops  cannot  be  had?^^ 

The  great  reformer  and  martyr  Archbishop  Cranmer 
was  one  of  the  first  characters  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived, 
for  learning,  piety,  and  virtue;  and  is  supposed  to  have 
done  more  than  any  other  towards  compiling  the  liturgy  of 
the  Church  of  England;  "His  equal  (says  Dr.  Warner) 
was  never  yet  seen  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  and  I  will 
take  upon  me  to  say,  that  his  superior  never  will."  In 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  according  to  Bishop  Burnet,|| 

*Reasonableness  of  conformity,  part  I. 

f  Defence  of  Episcopal  ordination,  conclusion. 

i  Quoted  from  Neale's  History. 

II  History  of  the  reformation,  anno  1549.  Stillingfleet,  with 
ifiss  appearance  of  authenticity,  says  it  was  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward VI.  . 


>m0mtt^tmtm.im>am»*»'    iifci  i 


28 

there  were  proposed  by  the  King,  to  this  great  man,  in 
conjunction  with  other  learned  divines,  certain  questions, 
among  which  are  the  two  following,  with  the  Archbishop's 
answers  annexed : 

Question.  Whether  if  it  fortuned  a  Prince  Christian,  to 
conquer  certain  dominions  of  infidels,  having  none  but  the 
temporal  learned  men  with  him,  it  be  defended  by  God's 
law,  that  he  and  they  should  preach  the  word  of  God 
there  or  no,  and  also  make  and  constitute  priests  there 
or  no  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not  against  God's  law ;  but  contrariwise 
they  ought  indeed  so  to  do ;  and  there  be  histories  that 
witness,  that  some  christian  princes  and  other  laymen  have 
done  the  same. 

Question.  Whether  it  be  defended  by  God's  law,  that 
if  it  so  fortuned  that  all  the  bishops  and  priests  of  a  region 
were  dead  ;  and  that  the  word  of  God  should  remain  there 
unpreached,  and  the  sacrament  of  baptism  and  others  un- 
ministered  ;  that  the  King  of  that  region  should  make  bi- 
shops and  priests  to  supply  the  same  or  no  ? 

Answer.     It  is  not  forbidden  by  God's  law. 

The  above  may  be  offered  as  the  opinions  of  not  only 
Cranmer,  but  also  of  most  of  the  eminent  bishops  and  other 
clergy  of  that  period;  for  whoever  will  attend  to  all  the 
questions  with  the  several  answers  as  recorded  by  Burnet,* 
will  find,  that  although  the  Archbishop  seems  singular  in 
iiis  sentiments  as  to  the  original  institution  of  bishops  and 
priests,  they  generally  agree  with  him  on  the  supposed 
occasions  of  necessity.  On  the  former  subject,  the  learned 
historifin  believes,  that  Cranmer  soon  afterwards  changed 
his  opinion  :  but  the  reason  assigned  for  that  belief,  if  it  be 
well  founded,!  does  not  extend  to  the  purpose  for  which  his 
authority  is  here  cited. 

*  Histoiy  of  the  reformation,  appendix  to  vol.  I. 

f  The  reason  is  Cranmei's  signing  the  book  called  "  the  eru. 
Jltion  of  a  christian  man."  This  book  has  led  some  to  believe 
that  the  archbishop's  principles  on  church  government  were  un- 
setiled  at  the  time  of  its  publication.  That  it  contradicts  itselt 
on  that  subject,  is  certain ;  but  this  was  owing  not  \o  Cranmer  s 
inconsistency,  but  that  of  the  king.    In  the  answers  of  the  foT-- 


29 

Now  every  circumstance  in  tlie  cases  supposed  makes 
the  principle  apply,  with  the  greater  force,  to  that  now 
under  consideration.  If  a  christian  King  may  on  an  emer- 
gency constitute  a  bishop,  much  more  may  the  whole  body 
of  the  churches  interested;  especially  when  they  interfere 
not  thereby  with  the  civil  magistrate.  If  a  Prince  would 
be  justifiable  in  taking  such  a  step,  rather  than  have  re- 
course to  the  spiritual  authority  of  some  neighbouring  and 
allied  kingdom,  much  more  would  we,  who  labour  under 
peculiar  political  difficulties.  If  it  were  commendable  on 
the  mere  hope  of  converting  infidels  to  the  christian  faith, 
it  would  be  more  so,  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  the 
principles  of  christian  knowledge  and  practice,  among 
those  who  are  already  of  the  number  of  its  professors.  If 
a  prince  ought  to  do  this  from  concern  for  the  spiritual 
welfare  of  his  subjects,  much  rather  ought  we,  for  that  of 
ourselves  and  our  children. 

On  the  credit  of  the  preceding  names,  the  author  rests 
this  the  last  part  of  his  subject ;  and  if  his  sentiments  should 
meet  with  an  unfavourable  reception,  he  will  find  no  small 
consolation  from  being  in  a  company  so  respectable. 

Perhaps,  however,  there  would  be  little  room  for  differ- 
ence of  sentiment  among  the  well  informed,  if  the  matter 
were  generally  taken  up  with  seriousness  and  moderation, 
and  were  to  rest  on  religious  principles  alone.  But  unhap- 
pily there  are  some,  in  whose  ideas  the  existence  of  their 
church  is  so  connected  with  that  of  the  civil  government  of 
Britain,  as  to  preclude  their  concurrence  in  any  system, 
formed  on  a  presumed  final  separation  of  the  two  countries. 
Prejudices  of  this  sort  will  admit  of  no  conviction  but  such 
as  may  arise  from  future  events ;  and   are  therefore  no 


mer  as  given  by  Burnet,  his  sentiments  seem  fully  fixed,  and 
(perhaps)  are  r'econcileable  with  the  Episcopal  plan,  according 
to  the  distinction  taken  between  the  appropriated  and  larger 
meanings  of  the  word  "  Bishop  "  As  to  "  the  erudition," 
Guthrie  says  (history  of  England,  vol.  3,  page  597.)  "  the  wri- 
tings were  modelled  by  the  King,  as  he  wanted  them  to  appear 
before  the  parliament  and  public  ;"  and  Dr.  Warner  says  (book 
II)  "  it  is  more  probably  a  declaration  of  the  King's  religion, 
than  of  any  other  man's  in  the  kingdom." 


*d'M*^MnMMM»*inH*rM««aa«^ 


30 

farther  considered  in  this  performance,  than  with  a  sincere 
sorrow,  that  any  persons,  professing  to  be  of  the  commu- 
nion of  the  church  of  England,  should  so  far  mistake  the 
principles  of  that  church,  as  to  imagine  them  widely  diffe- 
rent from  what  form  the  religion  of  the  scriptures  ;  which, 
as  Bishop  Sherlock  observes,  "stand  cle.ir  of  all  disputes 
about  the  rights  of  princes  and  subjects  ;  so  that  such  dis- 
putes must  be  left  to  be  decided  by  principles  of  natural 
equity  and  the  constitution  of  the  country."* 

As  for  those  who  are  convinced  that  the  "  United  Slates," 
have  risen  to  an  independent  rank  among  the  nations,  or 
who  even  think  that  such  may  probably  be  the  event  of  the 
war,  they  are  loudly  called  on  to  adopt  measures  for  the 
continuance  of  their  churches,  as  they  regard  the  public 
worship  of  God,  the  foundation  of  which  is  immutable  ;  as 
they  esteem  the  benefit  of  the  sacraments,  which  were  in- 
stituted by  the  supreme  bishop  of  the  church  ;  and  as  they 
are  bound  to  obey  the  scriptures,  which  enjoin  us  "  not 
to  forsake  the  assembling  of  ourselves  together,  as  the  man- 
ner of  some  is." 

More  especially  is  this  their  duty,  if  they  entertain  a  pe- 
culiar preference  for  the  principles  and  worship  of  their 
own  communion,  from  a  persuasion  of  their  superior  excel- 
lence. That  the  church  of  England  is  a  creature  of  the 
state,  an  engine  of  civil  policy,  and  no  otherwise  to  be 
maintained  than  by  human  laws,  has  been  said  by  some, 
as  a  reason  for  their  dissenting  from  her.  If  the  same  pre- 
judice has  been  with  others  a  reason  for  conformity ,  it  is  to 

*  Vol.  4.  Discourse  13th. 

The  indefeasible  right  of  Kings  is  pretended  to  be  founded  on 
certain  passages  of  scripture.  I'he  author  takes  the  liberty  of 
referring  to  the  very  sensible  sermon  above  quoted,  for  an  easy 
and  natural  explanation  of  the  passages  alluded  to ;  whereby 
they  are  vindicated  from  a  sense  which  makes  the  Gospel  an 
engine  of  despotism  and  oppression,  and  which,  however  sin- 
cerely believed  by  some,  is  with  others  a  mere  trick  of  state. 
Although  Bishop  Sherlock's  reputation  in  the  church  of  England 
is  generally  known,  it  may  be  proper  to  mention,  that  his  ser- 
mons are  among  the  books  formerly  sent  out  by  the  honourable 
"Society  for  propagating  the  gospel,"  to  be  distributed  by 
'  Jieir  missionaries. 


31 

be  hoped  they  are  comparatively  few,  and  that  the  great 
majority  of  Episcopalians,  believing  that  their  faith  and 
worship  are  ratiunal  and  scriptural,  have  no  doubt  of  their 
being  supported,  independent  of  state  establishments;  nay, 
it  is  presumed  there  are  many,  who,  while  ihey  sincerely 
love  their  fellow  christians  of  every  denomination,  know- 
ing (as  one  of  their  prayers  expresses)  that  the  "  bodv  of 
Christ"  comprehends  "  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful 
people,"  are  more  especially  attached  to  their  own  mode 
of  worship,  perhaps  from  education,  but  as  they  conceive, 
from  its  being  most  agreeable  to  reason  and  scripture, and  its 
most  near'y  resembling  the  pattern  of  the  purest  ages  of  the 
church.  On  the  consciences  of  such,  above  all  others, 
may  be  pressed  the  obligation  of  adopting  speedy  and  de- 
cisive measures,  to  prevent  their  being  scattered  "  like 
sheep  without  a  shepherd,"  and  to  continue  the  use  of  that 
form  of  divine  service,  which  they  believe  to  be  "  worship- 
ping the  Lord  in  the  beauty  of  holiness." 


THE  END. 


_    ^ 


tf 


s, 


^    h 


\ik 


)    iu 


■y^ 


